On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 00:15 -0500, Paul Kuliniewicz wrote: > I'm currently working on getting Rhythmbox Applet [0] to play nicely > with Rhythmbox 0.9.0. I've found that 0.9.0 make binary-incompatible > changes to the Bonobo interface, so an applet compiled against 0.8.8 > won't work properly with 0.9.0, and vice versa. Ideally, I'd like to > have the applet support both versions, which means coding an interface > targeted at the 0.9.x series. That's a bug really; the Bonobo interface should have been extended in a compatible way, either by creating a new interface that extends the old one. Patches to fix that accepted =) > The big question is, what's the preferred method for doing IPC with > Rhythmbox 0.9.x: Bonobo or D-Bus? A cursory glance t the code suggests > the Bonobo interface is more featureful than the D-Bus one, but if D-Bus > is deemed to be The Future, I suspect my effort would be better aimed at > fleshing that out rather than coding for a deprecated interface. The D-BUS one does less, true, but I'm happy to add more to it. D-BUS is definitely preferred because Bonobo is crazy, basically :) There's a big comment about this in remote/bonobo/rb-remote-bonobo.c. > I have noticed that 0.9.0 checks for D-Bus < 0.30. Is this the version > of D-Bus that Rhythmbox is targetting, or was that just the version > available when the interface was written? I notice D-Bus 0.50 was just > released; would it be better to target that, hoping there won't be many > changes between that and 1.0? I don't know how much D-Bus's wire > protocol has changed between versions, but the GLib bindings certainly > have; I notice 0.9.0 seems to use the plain vanilla C bindings. This is all fixed in CVS.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part