On 12/04/2009 07:24 AM, Jan de Groot wrote:
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
Yup. I was just about to say the same thing. Replacing a non-standard messaging library with dbus - which is effectively now the new standard messaging library, used in numerous apps & daemons - sounds sensible to me. In other words: this isn't a matter of "why does gedit need dbus", but rather "why does gedit need to use a messaging library at all"? The answer to *that* question, as he wrote, is so that "when you start a second Gedit process, it opens a new tab in your current Gedit window instead of creating a new one". Perhaps this feature didn't need to be implemented using a messaging library. But perhaps that did make the most sense for a number of reasons. I really don't know. And frankly, neither do you. As you're not a gedit developer, I really can't put much trust in your opinion on this issue. DR