glib in kdesupport: yes or no?

Guillaume Laurent glaurent at
Mon Mar 10 22:26:33 GMT 2003

On Monday 10 March 2003 21:29, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 09:18:03PM +0100, Guillaume Laurent wrote:
> >
> > Can't you simply use the QDataStream marshalling format ?
> I'm not sure, honestly. That is another possibility.
> The question is if you did that, what would the diff to the current
> dbus spec look like, what would be the pros and cons, etc.  I don't
> know.

The spec shouldn't be tied too closely to the marshalling, should it ?

> The value of it partially depends on what back compat strategy you
> want to use (wrap D-BUS with DCOP API, two separate APIs, etc., as I
> mentioned before).

If D-BUS is to be used by KDE, I'm not sure you really have a choice here : no 
matter how, it has to be one API, and as close to the current DCOP one as 
possible. That said, since most of DCOP use is through generated code, you 
probably have more liberty than this. However, ease of use and integration 
really is the key factor (I'm saying this as an application developper). I 
suggest you start using it in real apps (not demo samples) as soon as 

Anyway, I know from our previous exchanges about Inti long ago that making 
simple APIs is not a problem for you, so I rest my case now :-).


More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list