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

[David Rosenstrauch]

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