[arch-general] [OT] What is wrong with DBus anyway?

[Shridhar Daithankar]

On Friday 04 December 2009 08:08:03 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.

<more OT>
Why would gedit need to support dbus? AFAIK, KDE supports these things in 
kdelibs and everybody on top just has everything kdelibs support say new kio 
slaves.

one more reason not to use gnome.

for dbus, IMO it just adds a protocol on top of it. Warranted or not aside, 
XML is not unixy enough anyways.

My prediction is world would reinvent CORBA functionally and would refuse to 
call/recognise it as such. It will be only a decade late. 

DCOP was invented by KDE because CORBA was too heavy locally(at least thats a 
technical reason). dbus is succesor of dcop because gnome couldn't use dcop. 

I hate gnome for the ideas it represents. "Application foo got y pixel spacing 
between icons" can't be a feature item in relase in 200x. Its just sad design.

</more OT>
-- 
 Shridhar