Re: org.gnome.Application DBus Interface
- From: Alex Jones <alex weej com>
- To: Diego Escalante Urrelo <diegoe gnome org>
- Cc: Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo gnome-db org>, desktop-devel-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: org.gnome.Application DBus Interface
- Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 23:30:59 +0100
(I don't know why I don't get Rodrigo's mail to my inbox, but whatever...)
> On 8/14/07, Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo gnome-db org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Actually what is a better solution here is to use a different interface,
> > > such as the common media player interface described here:
> > > <http://wiki.xmms2.xmms.se/index.php/Media_Player_Interfaces>. That way,
> > > making Rhythmbox "pause" becomes a case of calling
> > > (org.gnome.MediaPlayer).Pause() rather than
> > > (org.gnome.Application).InvokeAction("Pause")
> > >
> > yeah, might be better, but in this case you will end up with lots of
> > interfaces. Think when apps start doing heavy use of this, to
> > communicate with app A you need the A interface, the B interface for app
> > B, etc.
This is exactly what the DBus interface system is designed for.
If you want to communicate with an app in a GNOME Application generic
way, use the org.gnome.Application interface.
If you want to communicate with an app in a GNOME Media Player way, use
the org.gnome.MediaPlayer interface.
Same goes for any use case. If you give me some examples I can try to
clarify what I mean.
The only reason I want to use, e.g. InvokeURIAction("Play", URI) vs.
Play(URI) is that it makes implementation easier, and means we have a
clean namespace for the URI actions. (The other alternative for that
last point is to make *another* interface, say,
] [Thread Prev