Re: D-BUS replaces Bonobo?

faq
flatforty
contribute
subscribe
configure
search
rdf

main
parent
thread

Re: D-BUS replaces Bonobo?
by Jeff on Thursday 23/Sep/2004, @21:50

Anybody care to comment?

I thought Kparts was KDE's answer to CORBA and dcop was something different all together. Hmmmm.... developer.kde.org isn't responding.

But dcop was designed as a structure to facilitate interprocess app communication, and kparts --or rather a kpart, was designed to be a sharable/embeddable component/object. This seems very different to me, but I'm not a devel.

But wasn't dbus supposed to be just like dcop, but with a little broader scope (to include kernel events like usb-drives, etc)? Am I stupid, but this doesn't sound like embeddable COM-like components which i thought corba was supposed to do.

Related Links

·   Articles on Qt
·   Also by Jeff
·   Contact author

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

Re: D-BUS replaces Bonobo?
by anon on Thursday 23/Sep/2004, @21:54

From my (limited) understanding of CORBA, CORBA would do the job of BOTH dcop and kparts. You would, of course, need a set of CORBA interfaces to make something like kparts, sorta like what Bonobo does.

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: D-BUS replaces Bonobo?
by Random KDE user on Friday 24/Sep/2004, @00:03

I second what the above poster has said. Nowadays, CORBA does both. I do not really know the history of CORBA good, but I think it started a bit different out. It was, and is, basically a distribution middleware. That is, it enables the distribution of objects on multiple machines/contexts and communication between them. That is, the emphasis lies somewhat on distributed computing. Whereas D-BUS and DCOP are message oriented middleware. The emphasis there lies, you guess it, in enabling applications to exchange messages. Not as a means for distributed computing, but more for the tasks like you see KDE is using DCOP for.

That is at least the impression I have where the emphasis of both technologies lies.

[ Reply To This | View ]

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


		"Ok, maybe my approach is over-engineered." -- Simon Hausmann
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.