Re: Proposing libgdata as a new desktop module

Le jeudi 07 mai 2009 à 19:22 -0400, Luis Villa a écrit :
> * if it isn't going to spread beyond google (or we have no reason to
> believe so, at any rate) is there a reason to think that google is
> special/important enough that we should compromise our values here? Is
> there a good tactical reason for it? (I'd say that this, roughly, is
> our relationship to SMB.) (There may be; I'm open to that possibility
> but don't see it argued for yet.)

I think SMB and SWF are different from gdata. These are implementations
of crappy protocols we need to interoperate with, but which are used by
millions of servers in the world. OTOH, gdata is an implementation only
used by one company.

> * alternately, are there ways to make this more general and support
> alternatives? In other words, should this be a general purpose
> web-data library (perhaps an atompub library?) in which gdata is but
> one mode? Should it be integrated with some other, pre-existing
> network connection or data protocol library?

This, or the adoption of gdata by other service providers, is the key
point here. 

Making libgdata a desktop module would mean, it becomes OK to make an
official desktop module depend on an API that is solely provided by
Google. Said otherwise, to make GNOME depend on Google services.

I think libgdata should be welcome as an optional dependency; having a
youtube plugin in totem is great, and it doesn’t make totem almost
useless without youtube. Having iPod support in rhythmbox is essential,
and it doesn’t make it useless with other MP3 players. But requiring
something like this? This is frightening.

 .''`.      Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `'   “I recommend you to learn English in hope that you in
  `-     future understand things”  -- Jörg Schilling

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]