FWD: Re: Thanks for KDE/Gnome article, and new info request

[M. Fioretti]

(I discovered only now that I had messed up my SMTP server config some
days ago, so I am sending this again: my apologies if you already got
it)
----- Forwarded message from "M. Fioretti" <m.fioretti at inwind.it> -----

Subject: Re: Thanks for KDE/Gnome article, and new info request
From: "M. Fioretti" <m.fioretti at inwind.it>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 09:39:13 +0100
To: kde-core-devel at kde.org
Reply-To: "M. Fioretti" <m.fioretti at inwind.it>
Mail-Followup-To: kde-core-devel at kde.org
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
Status: RO

On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 20:08:09 at 08:08:09PM -0500, Havoc Pennington (hp at redhat.com) wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 10:39:17PM +0100, M. Fioretti wrote:
> > 
> > "this piece of KDE/Qt calls, according to XDND or whatever, calls this
> > piece of X which calls this piece of GTK/GNOME" and so on (I hope I
> > made myself clear...)
> 
> Well, I mean, the Qt DND API uses XDND to do DND, and the GTK DND API
> uses XDND to do DND, and thus any two apps talk to each other via
> XDND. Other than that, it's all outlined in the XDND spec, but is
> pretty mind-blowingly complicated unless you're a hard core X toolkit
> hacker.
Definitely! I am not certainly thinking to squeeze that whole spec in
one picture. See below, however.
> 
> The important point here IMO is to kill the dumbass myth that "X cut
> and paste don't work" or "X DND doesn't work" or "GTK doesn't work
> with Qt" because all those things work just fine.
> 
That's where I want to help, if I can, spreading this message :-)

> It's just buggy apps (or apps that make up their own nonstandard
> target types) that don't work or work together. And users never file
> bugs against the apps. So I would make the point that people should
> complain to the author of both source and target app every time a
> cut-and-paste or DND fails.
> 
> Havoc

I will add this note (the correct way to complain) to the article. As far
as the picture is concerned, however:

1) maybe I should have said "protocol stack" instead of "flow diagram
of which part calls which others", I don't know. Which is better?

2) It would be really great if a picture could show the point you
make, i.e buggy apps vs buggy protocols or toolkits. The novice
programmer which reads:

	XDND is the right way to do drag and drop
	Qt and GTK support it

very often comes to the conclusion, as you said yourself, that using
either toolkit as a black box will be enough to protect him by whatever problem at
the DND level. Can we show with a picture where and why this
assumption is flawed?

Related note: apart from my very personal needs, i.e. publishing a
better article, such a picture, and/or a pointer to this thread and to
the whole "buggy apps, not buggy DND" issue, would be really useful on
the freestandards.org page about XDND, wouldn't they? Even more so on
the bug filing pages of Qt/GTK/XDND

	Ciao, and thanks again for any further info

		Marco Fioretti  
-- 
Marco Fioretti                 m.fioretti, at the server inwind.it
Red Hat for low memory         http://www.rule-project.org/en/

THERE IS NO AMOUNT OF SUCCESS THAT CAN COMPENSATE FOR FAILURE
AT HOME.

----- End forwarded message -----

-- 
Marco Fioretti                 m.fioretti, at the server inwind.it
Red Hat for low memory         http://www.rule-project.org/en/

Our inventions are wont to be pretty toys, which distract our
attention from serious things. They are but improved means to an
unimproved end, an end which it was already but too easy to arrive at;
as railroads lead to Boston or New York. We are in great haste to
construct a magnetic telegraph from Maine to Texas; but Maine and
Texas, it may be, have nothing important to communicate.