Waldo Bastian bastian at kde.org
Wed Sep 29 20:55:03 BST 2004

On Wednesday 29 September 2004 19:16, Lubos Lunak wrote:
>  Am I getting it right that you'd want to add the backwards compatibility
> support to the DBUS code in KDE4? Wouldn't it be better to keep KDE4 nice
> and clean and make it DBUS-only? The ugliness of backwards compatibility
> could be kept separately in dcopserver.
>  The mapping could be solved by dcopserver registering in the DBUS space as
> all the DCOP clients (with names adjusted for DBUS). Requests from DBUS
> would be re-marshalled for DCOP by dcopserver and sent to the right DCOP
> client. Requests from DCOP clients would be sent normally to other DCOP
> clients, and would be re-marshalled for DBUS and sent there. Indeed, that'd
> be a bit slower, but I don't think we should prefer old code to new code.
> Moreover, even your solution would need at least part of this to be done in
> dcopserver, so why not do it there completely?

Coming from DCOP, we may not be able to remarshall for DBUS properly if custom 
types are involved. Whether that's really an issue is open for debate but I 
think its better to have an approach that doesn't force you to drop support 
for custom types.

bastian at kde.org  |  Wanted: Talented KDE developer  |  bastian at suse.com
-------------- 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/20040929/093c7f84/attachment.sig>

More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list