Re: Again: please clarify the decision on IBus integration

[Ma Xiaojun <damage3025 gmail com>]

Hi, Aron Xu.

A partial showcase may be Fedora 17 with "ibus-gnome3" (ibus-gjs)
installed and corresponding extension enabled.

I'm already aware of the following issues.
1. No GUI way to enter preferences of ibus or engine.
A: It will appear in GNOME control center (from author of ibus-gjs).
2. Drop down menu/OSD's summary may not be clear enough.
A: This is a problem in IBus side, I would contact engine maintainers.
3. ibus-table leaves blank menu
A: This is a ibus-table bug, it is hidden in Ubuntu because Ubuntu
hacked IBus UI make "Embedded in menu" mode unusable.

I'd like to hear about more issues because IBus UX has significant
change this time.

If you just want to use Fcitx, I think you can set magic environment
variables manually and use Kimpanel for GS as a UI.
https://github.com/csslayer/kimpanel-for-gnome-shell
Reference (in Chinese):
http://tigersoldier.is-programmer.com/2012/5/16/tech-detail-about-gnome-ibus-integration-feature.33657.html
I once met the above blogger in person and he is using Fcitx in above
mentioned way.

If you can prove that the magic environment variables way is broken,
then it is worth some discussion.

Also, IBus has been the default IMF for CentOS, Fedora, Ubuntu and so on.
It's just like Mac OS X or Windows which already have fixed IMFs.
(Debian and openSUSE are said to use locale based approach which would
select Fcitx as default for zh_CN. I think this is nonsense.)
I do know that some of IBus engines really sucks.
However, why an alternative IMF put the burden on both end users and
DE/Distro developers?
End users would take some pain to switch between IMFs.
DE/Distro developers have to take extra care not to break any existing IMFs.
It would be nice if Fcitx can run as a IBus meta engine.