Michael Pyne michael.pyne at kdemail.net
Sun Feb 12 20:01:11 GMT 2006

On Sunday 12 February 2006 11:12, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
> >Why to kill compatibility (and predictability) after all these "let's
> > make DCOP a selling point for KDE" talks?

Well, KDE3 applications will still talk to other KDE3 applications as well.

One problem is that it is hard to do, since AFAIK all that dcopserver knows 
about the passing data is that it is a QByteArray.  That is, the dcopserver 
couldn't automatically transform a QString into the DBUS equivalent, because 
the dcopserver doesn't know that the destination is expecting a QString.

We could manually interpret some of the well known interfaces as Thiago 
mentioned, but it is an impossible general-case problem.  Especially for 
applications that never had a DCOP IDL (their DCOP interface is entirely 

This is true even if we're not switching to DBUS, since the on-wire interface 
to QByteArray of some types changed in Qt 4.  An application would have to 
manually ask for the old interface to ensure compatibility.  This isn't as 
difficult a problem as we could fix it by altering dcopidl for the 99% of 
applications that use a DCOP IDL.  But I'd hate to be the one trying to test 
that setup. :-/

 - Michael Pyne
-------------- 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/20060212/9f541d66/attachment.sig>

More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list