Notifications-future, a recap

[Aaron J. Seigo]

On Friday, September 21, 2012 01:40:51 Alex Fiestas wrote:
> 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.

"new" is not a good enough reason to create new incompatabilities. currently 
KDE notifications work seamlessly in other workspaces, and Gtk+ (and other) 
apps work seamlessly in Plasma workspaces .. this is due to supporting galago.

if the "new" can be achieved by extending or building on galago, that would 
seem to me to be a much better thing.

and no, galago is not perfect. it's not even "great", but it is passable and 
widely used and that gives it a lot of value.

if it turns out that we can not indeed achieve truly useful things without 
creating something completely new, we'll still need to support galago 
notifications in Plasma Workspaces, and we'll still want a bridge to galago so 
we don't lose integration with other workspaces (otherwise our app devs and 
users will, rightfully, complain)

so ... what are the things that can not be achieved by building on top of 
galago?

> 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
> least expand galago spec.

key word: expand.

-- 
Aaron Seigo
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/plasma-devel/attachments/20120921/b9331ce7/attachment.sig>