On Freitag 12 Februar 2010, Zeerak Waseem wrote: > On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 00:03:27 +0100, Volker Armin Hemmann > > <volkerar...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > On Donnerstag 11 Februar 2010, Zeerak Waseem wrote: > >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 23:53:10 +0100, Volker Armin Hemmann > >> > >> <volkerar...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> > On Donnerstag 11 Februar 2010, Zeerak Waseem wrote: > >> >> Particularly when your wm can handle all the inter-app > >> >> communication that is necessary without dbus. > >> > > >> > the problem is the WM can NOT handle all the inter-app communication > >> > that is > >> > needed by a modern desktop environment. Especially, when you have apps > >> > that > >> > are just frames around building blocks that have to talk to each other > >> > (like > >> > for example konqueror, that is just a gui to the dolphin, khtml, > >> > >> konsole, > >> > >> > gwenview kparts). > >> > >> But it seems to me, that the apps that need the communication are in > >> DE's. > >> Which is fine, I just think that if you're choosing a smaller WM > >> (Openbox, > >> awesome, JWM, etc.), where there isn't a need for an inter-app > >> communication that extensive, then it's a bit of an overkill really. > > > > so how do you propose that a network connection manager tells a broweser > > or > > mail app that they are offline? > > > > And don't start with sockets. That will result in a nightmare. dbus is a > > clean > > solution to a huge problem. Apps have to talk to each other. The only > > way to > > keep it sane is a standardized IPC daemon like dbus. > > Well how about something with sockets ;)
because then you need all apps to talk the same 'language'. You also have to built in filters into every app to prevent 'malicious' or damaged messages from doing harmfull stuff. Every app. So from a workload, maintenance and security POV - a nightmare. Oh, and don't forget the wasted memory and CPU cycles because of all the duplicated code. dbus is a clean and simple solution that reduces workload for the devs AND resources needed by the system. A win-win scenario. > > Personally, I don't see a big problem in a network connection manager not > being able to tell various apps that they don't have a connection to the > internet. If you're offline often you will know it, and if not you have > something to look into. oh yeah, it is just a great thing that the mail app constantly tries to reach servers and then throws errors. Not like this needs zero cpu cycles and zero ram. It is so much worse that the mail app knows that there is nothing to do and that it can sleep on... <sarcasm>
