[Feedback] DBus Interface Needed Enhancements

[Reigo Reinmets]

Hei Markey and the Team!

The way you should go (based on my tiny brains opinion) is simple:

Create a fresh new set of calls and signals etc, remove the 
inconsistencies etc.. If i remember correctly, DCOP allowed nesting of 
the calls right? like putting them into "folders".. Actualy it was a 
Class Structure i think.. argh i've been away from the code too long.

Anyway, if you can, you could but move the old calls into 
"old/playlist/next" style hirearchy.. though its much work.

But Leave the old DCOP / D-BUS calls and mark them Depracated and a note 
that will be removed in Amarok 2.1 or smth...

Amarok 2.0 is a "Whole New Sexperience" in my opinion, nobody expects 
you to keep supremely good backwards compatibility.. Imho Backward 
compatibility should NEVER EVER disrupt the work of the new developments 
etc.. So if its old and in the way, get rid of it! :)

Just my 0.02$
Xatax

Mark Kretschmann wrote:
> On 8/4/07, slaout at linux62.org <slaout at linux62.org> wrote:
>> Sébastien Laoût sent a message using the contact form at
>> http://amarok.kde.org/en/contact.
>>
>> While doing this program, I perceived some frustration in regard to the
>> Amarok DCop API.
>> I'm not mailing to complain, but to make constructive criticisms, and a
>> proposal for a better DBus interface in Amarok 2, so that all new Amarok
>> scripts and extensions can come to life, extending the Amarok user base,
>> and making them happier.
> [...]
> 
> Thanks for sharing your proposal, Sébastien. This kind of feedback
> directly from an extension developer is very valuable for us.
> 
> As far as I can see all of your requests make sense. I think we will
> try to implement them, step by step. One thing that I have been
> wondering is whether we should try to keep compatibility with the old
> interface - currently it's exactly the same as in 1.4, except that
> it's a D-Bus call instead of DCOP - or if we should make a new start
> and clean up the interface, remove inconsistencies and so on.
> 
> Currently I tend to prefer the former solution, as for one it's less
> work, and second it makes it possible to port existing scripts very
> easily. What do you think?
>