Re: using dbus in the platform


The point about toolkit vs. app framework I think is perfectly debatable, but is best debated on its own, and considering lots of things besides dbus, imo. I won't try to start that thread by laying out a comprehensive position statement or anything. There is already some stuff on "Project Ridley" out there, and already GTK has examples (such as the Beagle/Tracker integration), as a starting point.

Matthew Johnson wrote:
I also agree that D-Bus should be standardised as a protocol rather than
an implementation. I believe it's the only way to make it a universal
standard, rather than something some people happen to use.

Is this relevant to the dbus-in-gtk dicussion, however?

As you say "D-Bus should be standardised as a protocol rather than
an implementation" and that is in fact the case and intent, modulo work that simply has not been done but anyone is encouraged to do (i.e. the spec could be better).

However, if we say "X11 should be standardized as a protocol rather than an implementation," I don't think it follows that GTK should not use an implementation of X11. Clearly GTK has to use Xlib, XCB, or at least some internal equivalent. It could use a pluggable implementation, perhaps, but that would still be an implementation, and the plugin API would place constraints on viable backend implementations.

In my opinion the dbus (protocol) situation is exactly the same as the X11 (protocol) situation for GTK. The only difference is that X11 is used by virtually all - but not all, i.e. DirectFB - Linux-based environments, while dbus is used only by GNOME, KDE and XFCE and perhaps not some other setups. However, neither X11 nor DBus (protocol) is used by GTK on all its targets (Windows, Mac, obviously).


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