Thomas Zander wrote: > One part here is how those applications communicate over the wire. I.e. an > RPC layer. > So this is not about me choosing to let KOffice depend on a RPC layer that > OOo > developed (and split off, I know). This is about choosing an open standard > over a personal preference.
I don't see dbus as a standard, neither a formal one nor a de-facto one (maybe an emerging one for the Linux platform). And it's not more open than UNO (more open than "open" isn't possible ;-)). But anyway, that's completely irrelevant here. Neither UNO nor dbus qualify for the job we are discussing here, for different reasons. I only named UNO in the context of adapting OOo to any potential interface, not as the tool for other applications. And as UNO currently can't adapt dbus interfaces I don't see a way for OOo to cooperate with dbus. That's why I would prefer to use an ODF based approach or SOAP, even if it's not the best technology on earth. We know that interfacing with SOAP can be awkward, but a SOAP client like the one we have implemented can overcome this. Nobody needs to "speak" SOAP directly to work with it on application level. I'm sure that applications using dbus also don't force the developers to go down to the communication layer to exchange information. You have a language binding. Something similar is possible with SOAP. I wouldn't use SOAP for a complete application but it is pretty usable for service oriented (sic!) tasks like retrieving data from somewhere. > I think I corrected you in an earlier message already; there _is_ windows > support. And mac support. You didn't address my concern about the quality of the support. I know that there is some code that was written to run on Windows. But the windbus project page clearly states that it is in alpha state. And if you see the current activity there it is not presumptuous to have doubts if it can reach production quality and maturity on that platform soon. The OOo MAC port also claims to have alpha state - I wouldn't call this "native MAC support by OOo". > Anyway, I hope this cleared any misconceptions. My personal preference is > not > the most important one, and this is not just about zotero and oowriter. Its > about having one API that a set of ODF based WPs are willing to support. > Ultimately the programmer decides and this is low on my personal priority > list. It's also not very high on my personal priority list. But the same discussion could happen in another context again and I wanted to make clear that if people are interested to cooperate with OOo they can't use dbus until someone has developed a bridge between UNO and dbus. That's true for citations as well as for any other service providers we might talk about in the future. BTW: I tried to find some information about development with dbus, somthing that can help me to understand what it means to "talk" via dbus. Unfortunately freedesktop.org seems to be awfully slow ATM and jumping around looking for the relevant information takes just ages. Do you have a nice direct link for me? Or a direct contact? Ciao, Mathias -- Mathias Bauer (mba) - Project Lead OpenOffice.org Writer OpenOffice.org Engineering at Sun: http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS Please don't reply to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". I use it for the OOo lists and only rarely read other mails sent to it. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
