On Thu, 2003-09-25 at 15:45, Bo Lincoln wrote: > > I think that we could at least use a UNIX socket. > > All of this would be implemented in libmultisync that would be called by > > any client (GUI or not) of multisyncd. > > I guess all the Gnome people would say "Bonobo". It probably makes > sense.
Not that sure. I'm talking about daemon, not embeddable application. multisyncd should be as small as possible. *Ideally*, none of multisyncd and device conduits should depend on GNOME. That could make multisync the de-facto synchronization system for UNIX desktop (what about KDE users). Of course that is my only opinion, but given the effort put in freedesktop.org to get unified desktops, I don't see why multisync could not attempt to do the same and be part of the game. Anyway it is your baby and you can disagree if you want. :-) > The GUI/lib separation could be useful, but we should definately think > about the design for a while before we start to do anything. Which other > applications would ever like to use libmultisync, and how? Provide a bookmark synchronization conduit and you'd get the web browser to use it. Otherwise, for now, any PIM (Evolution, KOrganizer). Hub -- "<erno> hm. I've lost a machine.. literally _lost_. it responds to ping, it works completely, I just can't figure out where in my apartment it is." -- http://www.bash.org/?5273 ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Multisync-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/multisync-devel
