Re: Cool

faq
flatforty
contribute
subscribe
configure
search
rdf

main
parent
thread

Re: Cool
by Aaron J. Seigo on Thursday 23/Sep/2004, @15:31

> Oh yeah, being able to interoperate with various GNOME apps is good too.

it's not just GNOME. HAL (hardware abstraction layer) uses DBUS as well to notify from (the Linux) kernel space out about hardware devices (including hotplugging). DBUS is useful to all sorts of apps, not just GUI apps. it is, IMHO, the obvious and logical progression from DCOP, which proved within the confines of the desktop the utility and power of a purpose-built lightweight IPC mechanism, out to the OS in general. people complain about how the desktop is its own little disconnected world on UNIX, and DBUS is one step towards bridging that gap.

so, it's not *just* desktop interop, it's a way to bring a meaningful communication stack across the OS. the ATK DBUS bridge is one such example.

Related Links

·   Articles on Qt
·   Also by Aaron J. Seigo
·   Contact author

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )

Re: Cool
by Heiko on Thursday 23/Sep/2004, @17:15

>people complain about how the desktop is its own little disconnected world on UNIX, and DBUS is one step towards bridging that gap.

Emmmh.Perhaps this fact that the gui isn't linked to deep with the os saves us from the experience of hardlocked machines like Windows, if gui apps crash.

Maybe DBUS brings us more possibilities for the Unix desktop, but i hope we don't have to accustom with daily reboots or security holes that find their way to the os through the desktop.I would prefer the desktop as a separate thing (like it is) with not to much power over the os.

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: Cool
by Eric Laffoon on Friday 24/Sep/2004, @00:46

Interacting with a messaging bus and deeply integrating poorly abstracted code into the kernel are about as similar as installing phone lines are to building on top of another house. Getting a message or not getting a message where a client is in trouble is not the same as the client code blocking the kernel when it crashes because they are directly linked.

The key here is that a messaging system can provide the benefits with a huge buffering effect reducing the issues to a fraction of the problems possible with deep integration. This should affect your need to reboot about as much as a web site going down unless it's done very poorly.

[ Reply To This | View ]

The Fine Print: The previous comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )


		"KDE is much too well-structured for this world..." -- Rob Buis
KDE®, "K Desktop Environment", "KDE Dot News", "got the dot?" and the KDE Logo® are trademarks or registered trademarks of KDE e.V. in the European Union, the United States and other countries. All other trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the poster. The rest: Copyright © 2000-2008 KDE e.V. for The KDE Project. For further information or comments on this site, please contact the Webmaster.