Re: Common server activation

[Matthias Elter <me main-echo net>]

On Sun, 27 Jun 1999, Miguel de Icaza wrote:

...
> > But I'm not very well informed about GNOME's .gnorba files and their
> > structure, however I think we _could_ put these three types of entries
> > into the common .desktop file standard as they're used commonly between
> > both environments. We just might want to agree on standard names of them.
> 
> Sticking every bit of information you need in a .desktop file is
> broken.  

Up to now we store all application specific information (app-name, icons,
docpath) in .desktop files. We have two general types of CORBA servers, plain
servers and user applications like KSpread, KWord or Konqueror that provide some
CORBA services. The CORBA specific application info like RepoId, activation
mode etc. is application info like the app-name or icon for our second type of
CORBA server. Now tell me why we should not store this info in the applications
.desktop file? I can somehow understand your point if it comes to plain CORBA
servers, but on the other hand .gnorba files look like striped down
.desktop files to me.

> It might be ok for some people used to Windows, or to the SuSE config
> setup, but I do not want a gigantic file /etc/The-System to control
> the whole system.

Sorry, I don't see your point, three or four CORBA entries do not _bloat_ the
.desktop files. If anything bloats the .desktop files then its the 20-30
app-name translations we have in there.

> And bloating .desktop files is exactly the same in this regard.  "We
> need to add more information, where should it go?"  The answer varies,
> but it is definetly not "on the .desktop file".

No offense Miguel, but just yelling about whats broken and what should not be
done this or that way is not exactly constructive.

Greetings,
Matthias

--
Matthias Elter
me@kde.org
University of Wuerzburg, Germany