DCOP interface in kicker broke compatibility?

[Waldo Bastian]

On Thursday 03 February 2005 07:56, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> On Wednesday 02 February 2005 02:08, Waldo Bastian wrote:
> > Yes, and I think that's where the burden is supposed to be. The
> > alternative is that the end-user has to carry the burden. I don't think
> > that's the right place if KDE wants to establish itself and its
> > applications as a professional environment.
>
> certainly; but saying "all IPC calls must be maintained going forward" is,
> IMO, more burdon than necessary on application developers. application
> development should not be overly burdensome, otherwise we discourage use of
> IPC (or encourage breaking with our policies). which is why i think there
> needs to be a middle ground where it's possible say, "This set of calls are
> part of a public interface that cary with them a guarantee of maintenance,
> these calls don't."

I agree with you that this is something we should look into for the future 
(and the future is called KDE 4), but for the situation today I would very 
much like to restate that "all IPC calls must be maintained going forward".

Cheers,
Waldo
-- 
bastian at kde.org   |   Free Novell Linux Desktop 9 Evaluation Download
bastian at suse.com  |   http://www.novell.com/products/desktop/eval.html
-------------- 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/20050203/e82117a3/attachment.sig>