Re: [Rhythmbox-devel] IPC in Rhythmbox 0.9.0

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

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