On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 03:38 +0100, Arvid Picciani wrote:
Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
What does upstream have to say about this dependency? Does not seem 'necessary' to me
http://blogs.igalia.com/itoral/2006/03/30/adding-dbus-support-to-gedit/
priceless finding.
let me sum up: " - There is feature X which works very well - He discovered it doesn't use dbus. - He starts work on a very complicated patch that makes it use dbus.
Let's sum up: - there's a feature using a deprecated library (bacon uses the bonobo-activation framework) - he discovered the new way to do these things is by replacing it by dbus - he starts work on something that replaces bacon/bonobo and uses dbus Really, you're just having a 100% anti-dbus attitude, but somehow you're fine with Bonobo. Maybe you didn't know, but Bonobo is worse than dbus. It's a complicated slow framework with a lot of design mistakes. The problem with dbus here is that Bonobo was matured, dbus is quite young. Dbus was lacking some features in the beginning, causing nasty regressions. One example was the lack of possibility to pass environment variables to a dbus-launched application. I don't know if this is possible already, but I think they worked around the limitation by not using environment variables for such stuff anymore. Note that a lot of work has been duplicated in applications when they were ported to single-instance applications using dbus. This has been fixed by using the libunique library. At this moment anjuta, brasero, devhelp, gnome-bluetooth, gnome-control-center, gnome-disk-utility, gnome-power-manager, nautilus and totem use this library for their single-instance functionality. Gedit uses its own complicated way and should switch to this library also if possible.