Hi Tiago, Tiago Vignatti wrote: > Hi Daisuke Kameda. Hi guys, >
>> The perfect solution would harmonize the requested projects, though >> theoretically possible, this is unlikely to happen (I did some brief >> investigations into this some years ago :-). One more reasonable >> approach seems to be, to select one component model and to add >> adapters as needed. > > > I agree with you that we must reuse some components in the various > technologies (UNO, QtDBUS, etc..) to deliver interoperability among > applications but I'm afraid that we must "move down the stack" a > little. What does the stack you are talking about look like? > > For instance, how a developer of KDE, GNOME, Mozilla or other would not > change some component technology if a low level application changes (say > some API inside X server)? In my conception only if we have a steady > graphical architecture interface in Linux we can start something like > the Common Desktop Infrastructure development platform to connect the > existing components/protocols. And this is the big point today: we > *don't* have a stable graphical architecture. This fact is probably > because these area does not call much attention by enterprises which > employ Linux developers. Not being a X programmer at all, my understanding is, that at least the basic protocols are stable (steady) for quite some years now. When talking about application interoperability, I meant not only OLE kinds of things (IIRC, there were XEmbed and other approaches (Bonobo?) to achieve that). You may regard component models just as being a kind of an ABI, with some additional functionalities regarding discovery, deployment, distribution etc. > > Recently someone [0] did a simple math concerning the Xorg development. > Let me transcript it: > > As a curiosity, the code checked out by git_xorg.sh is roughly > half the size of the Linux kernel, estimated brutally with LOCs: > > $ find xserver lib proto driver mesa64 drm xcb pixman \ > -name '*.[ch]' | xargs cat | wc -l > 3906110 That is a lot! It would be interesting to see this split into drivers, extensions and core. > > > The number of Xorg contributors can similarly be estimated > like this: > > $ git-log | git-shortlog -s -n | wc -l > 158 That is not so much. Seems that companies are not yet providing drivers for their hardware independently. > > By comparison, the Linux kernel has roughly 3400 individual > contributors. If we relate this number to the many drivers Linux has, it would explain it. > > As inaccurate as these methods of forensics may be, they > give an idea of how huge the gap is. Clearly, the X > maintainers deserve acknowledgment for such a remarkable > effort. mmmhhhh ... depending on your perspective, this may show a problem with X development. Again, I am no X programmer and never have taken a look at the code. If the relationship between the X core and the drivers would be similar to the Linux kernel, one could expect driver development to be independent and mostly be driven by hardware companies or interested developers. The question would be why this does not seem to be the case ... > > > Quite interesting, nah? Yes. > > Just my two cents that I think necessary for open source desktop... > > > Thanks, > > [0] http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg/2007-November/030447.html > Kay -- Sun Microsystems GmbH Kay Ramme Sachsenfeld 4 Senior Technical Architect 20097 Hamburg Phone: (+49 40) 23646 982 Germany Fax: (+49 40) 23646 550 http://www.sun.com/staroffice mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sun.com/openoffice http://udk.openoffice.org Sun Microsystems GmbH, Sonnenallee 1, D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten Amtsgericht München: HRB 161028 Geschäftsführer: Thomas Schroeder, Wolfgang Engels, Dr. Roland Bömer Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Häring _______________________________________________ Desktop_architects mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop_architects
