On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 10:23:24AM +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote: > On Wed, 2005-09-21 at 20:27 -0400, JP Rosevear wrote: > > On Tue, 2005-09-20 at 11:48 +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote: > > > > > Do all implementations have the same features, or do we have to cater to > > > a least common denominator? > > > > > > It seems like this is not really the case, at least some comments in > > > this thread says Avahi is more powerful. A least common denominator > > > gives us a less powerful API and possibly a less featurefull desktop. > > > And there is a risk that apps start using Avahi anyway as they need some > > > feature, and then we're not portable anymore. > > > > This is exactly whats occurring with the cross platform status icon api > > though isn't it? (I don't think I'm for the lowest common denominator > > there either, but I haven't read all the arguments). > > There might be a lowest common denominator thing going on there, I'm not > sure. But in that case one can hardly claim we should just declare the > freedesktop X status icon standards as what gtk+ should use, as there is > no way it would run on e.g. Windows. Its quite possible that Avahi can > be ported to windows and used directly by Gnome on Win32 or OSX, > although pretty strange... > > Yeah, its not always obvious what is best. For instance, it might be > nice to have a Gnome wrapper for avahi just to make the interface more > "gnomey" (easy glib mainloop integration, use GObject/signals etc).
Well mainloop integration is already pretty easy, however a GObject interface could be nice, and is something I may put some time into last check davyd was doing something with this so I might see where he got to. Trent > > Anyway, having discussed this for a while I think I have made up my > mind. I think we should have a Gnome-style wrapper, supporting at least > the most common dns-sd operations, which can use avahi or any other API > beneath. Then most of the desktop can use this, and only if we need to > do something really uncommon do we need to use avahi directly, and that > could be made optional. The reason I think so is that we really want a > wrapper anyway, to make the API fit gnome better, and if you already > have the wrapper its not really much of an additional cost to support > other APIs. The extra maintainance burden of "non-standard" backends > fall on the users of them and don't hurt the mainstream Gnome. > > > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > Alexander Larsson Red Hat, Inc > [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] > He's an obese one-eyed sorceror for the 21st century. She's a disco-crazy > paranoid bounty hunter with a knack for trouble. They fight crime! > > _______________________________________________ > desktop-devel-list mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list -- Trent Lloyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Bur.st Networking Inc. _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
