Consistency of "dcop" qdbus calls

[David Faure]

On Wednesday 16 April 2008, Helio Chissini de Castro wrote:
> Moin people
> 
> In preparation to FISL tomorrow, i start to use a lot of hand calls with qdbus  
> to see how match our previous dcop scripting.
> 
> So far, so good, the experience is more than excellent, but i noted one 
> important thing which is the the lack of consistence on some similar gui 
> application calls.
> 
> We're dealing with things like org.kde.akregator to call akregator instances, 
> and org.kde.konqueror-<procnumber> for konqueror and org.digikam.digikam-
> <procnumber> for digikam.
> 
> The logic would point for:
> org.kde.akregator
> org.kde.konqueror.<procnumber>

How is this more consistent with DCOP?
DCOP used konqueror-<procnumber> (dash, not dot, just like we do currently in KApplication for the dbus registration)

> org.kde.digikam ( as suspect that we're not suppose to run more than one 
> digilam on same user account )

Yet it's not a KUniqueApplication? That's strange...

> So, i propose to unify the spec for applications aimed for consistency and 
> stepping up to fix all possible applications as soon everyone agrees in that 
> spec. It can looks like exagerated, but this will make a good develop 
> recomendation for new application developers.
> 
> I will be glad to receive any input against or pro this, since is a delicated 
> move and need be done right now as 4.1 alphas are arriving.

Please be more specific about what you want to change exactly.

-- 
David Faure, faure at kde.org, sponsored by Trolltech to work on KDE,
Konqueror (http://www.konqueror.org), and KOffice (http://www.koffice.org).