glib in kdesupport: yes or no?

[Havoc Pennington]

On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 02:48:41PM -0500, Maksim Orlovich wrote:
> > 
> > My belief is that the API from a KDE standpoint should be virtually
> > identical to DCOP. That's the current plan anyway.
> 
> Impossible without use of QDataStream marshalling format, as far as I can
> see.
> 

There are various possibilities here.

One approach is to introduce a D-BUS API that would basically look
like DCOP but use something like DBusDataStream instead of
QDataStream. Currently D-BUS only supports a limited set of types, so 
there would only be 9 or 10 overloadings of operator<<.

Another approach is to do an in-process conversion from QDataStream to
D-BUS format behind the scenes. 

If most code is using an "IDL" approach instead of QDataStream
directly, then it's a good bit easier to keep things looking the same.

Of course it's also possible to make the APIs just be different,
and not worry about syncing them up.

Another thing you could do is have special D-BUS messages that
encapsulate a DCOP message (basically replacing ICE with D-BUS).

Here is a related message:
 https://listman.redhat.com/pipermail/message-bus-list/2002-December/000039.html

It's really up to KDE developers, there are tons of ways to approach
this, and in fact it's possible to do several of the approaches at
once, if that is interesting.

Havoc