RFC: DBUS & KDE 4

[Thiago Macieira]

Ian Reinhart Geiser wrote:
>Against DBUS:
>a) More glib (someone please get these guys the Thinking in C++ book)

I don't think this point is an issue. The wire format for D-BUS is defined. 
So we can write our own libkdbus library if we so wish, with C++ bindings.

It would be necessary to have a library anyways if my idea of a DCOP alias 
inside D-BUS is to be followed.

>b) No-one has really adopted it yet.  I think HAL uses it to a limited
>extent, and maybe gconf is maybe moving to it?  It all looks like someone
>is waiting for someone else to bite.  This didn't turn out so well with
>DCOP or arts.

That someone else would be us. Putting the KDE weight behind it could give 
the momentum it needs. DCOP and MCOP are largely KDE-exclusive.

>For DCOP:
>c) Bindings

That doesn't have to go away.

-- 
  Thiago Macieira  -  Registered Linux user #65028
   thiago (AT) macieira (DOT) info
    ICQ UIN: 1967141   PGP/GPG: 0x6EF45358; fingerprint:
    E067 918B B660 DBD1 105C  966C 33F5 F005 6EF4 5358
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20040929/a97fa8c6/attachment.sig>