RFC: DBUS & KDE 4

[Aaron Seigo]

On September 30, 2004 10:04, Maks Orlovich wrote:
> > [*] Just consider Aaron and his systray-over-DBUS. 

hehe =P

> See, that's partly why I am really uncomfortable about this stuff. It's 90%
> buzz, 10% technology. And buzz has rather circural nature: people get
> convinced that everyone will use X, so everyone ends up using X.

to say it again: i'm using it because it has things DCOP doesn't. it would 
simply not be feasable to do what i'm doing with DCOP. it's either XAtoms 
galore (which doesn't solve the all the aspects of the problem i'm trying to 
solve) or DBUS or <insert a NIH-syndrome-driven solution that doesn't exist 
yet here>

> D-BUS hardly excites me because I don't see anything particularly
> innovative in it (while DCOP's very existance was quite a radical idea, and
> the whole key/call causality tracing things is interesting). D-BUS seems

not everything has to be innovative. in fact, innovative ideas become mundane 
but often stick around for a long time anyways because they are good ideas 
(which is partly why they were proclaimed to be "innovative" to begin with). 
just because something is yesterday's innovation isn't a valid argument 
against it; it's actually often an argument FOR it, since it's a good idea 
that's (hopefully) matured.

unless there is something better, there's nothing wrong with such a situation. 
though you seem to imply that there could be a greater innovation here. what 
would that be, in your mind?

> so ended up making some things worse w/some things better, while 
> reproducing a lot of the really mundane stuff.

the question has be posed, but not answered: can the "stuff that is worse" be 
fixed and how much effort would that take? i know earlier you spoke about 
deadlock issues, can you point to where these problems exist exactly[1]?

[1] not saying they don't exist, i'm just curious to know where as that's half 
the battle. well... maybe 1/10th. but it's a start ;-)

-- 
Aaron J. Seigo