Re: application indicators

On Thu, 2010-02-18 at 13:57 -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Ted Gould <ted gould cx> wrote:
> > Yes, I think GTK/glib is a good place.  One of the big blockers is the
> > requirement for DBus,
> Yes, clearly having glib-dbus in the stack today would help a lot;
> however gvfs already has an internal (private) connection, we can
> figure this out.  I think having an internal non-public API would not
> be too hard.
> If it'll help move things along here I think I can schedule some of my
> time for this relatively soon, basically just move gvfs/gdbusutils.c
> to glib/gio/gbus-private.c.

Ah, okay.  I didn't realize that dbus was in gio, seems obvious now that
you told me :)

> > I think that, as long as the APIs are really similar, porting from
> > libappindicator to the GAppIndicator (or whatever) shouldn't be too
> > difficult.  That being said, how can we make sure the APIs are really
> > similar?
> Assuming the design doesn't change, any API delta (as long as it's not
> too egregious) is less interesting than the simple inertia effect of
> having created a lot of patches for various projects, and patching
> them again, even if it's almost a sed job.

Yes, I would hope that it wouldn't need to change much.  I'm not sure
how to guarantee that though.  "I here by mandate no one can disagree
with me" rarely works ;)

I think that the API is probably a little bit off topic for this list
though, so I'd invite everyone interested over the Ayatana list to hash
through it a little bit more.

I haven't yet put together of list of ideas for what to do in the next
phase of development, so it would be a great time to get everyone's
ideas to make sure their requirements are taken into account.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

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