Notifications-future, a recap

[Alex Fiestas]

On Thursday 20 September 2012 19:42:32 Sune Vuorela wrote:
> On 2012-09-17, Dario Freddi <drf54321 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > It really depends on what you want to achieve. If your goal is just
> > cleaning up the API and implementing the existing standard it might
> > work out, but for sure it won't just cut it for what I proposed, where
> 
> Why won't the existing (as in the fdo/galago spec) api cut it to ensure
> we also play well with others (in both directions) ?
> 
> Really. All I read is complexity for teh sake of complexity, trying
> to build walled gardens for the sake of building walled gardens and
> complicating deployment for the sake of complicating deployment.
> And I don't think that's neither modern, slick nor futureproof.

I don't see how this is incompatible with Dario's vision tbh, we just have to:

-Be sure we don't add overhead when deployming in windows/mac/others
-Be sure that we are retrocompatible
-Be sure that Qt's notification system integrates well (QPA)

As about the complexity, it all depends if we want to stay with galago (which 
imho is an insufficient standard) or we want to try to do something new.

GNOME3 notifications are quite good, implementing at least one concept long 
pursued by Notmart's vision (being able to specify which notifications should 
be kept and which notifications are irrelevant). To do this they had to at 
least expand galago spec.

Also, empathy and Ktp working in a way of replying to a messaje in the same 
notification denotes that there are people willing to do more with 
notifications.

just my 2 cents.