On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 04:13:47PM +0200, Christophe Fergeau wrote: > Le samedi 24 septembre 2005 à 00:11 +1000, Jonathan Matthew a écrit : > > LIRC support is self > > contained, so this might be helpful as a use case for a plugin system or > > whatever. > > I'll keep repeating myself, but lirc support (and last.fm support for > that matter) are the kind of things that are perfectly doable using the > bonobo/dbus interfaces ;)
While I agree, I think there's a reasonable case for including lirc support in rhythmbox itself. It's a small amount of fairly brainless code that does nothing if the user doesn't run lirc. If enabled, it adds one dependency on a small library that totem already depends on (at least in debian and ubuntu). The lirc client library interface is stable. As I see it, the tradeoff in pushing functionality like this out to bonobo/dbus clients is: - Clients can be written in higher level languages (most are in python) - Clients don't add dependencies to rhythmbox - Less rarely-tested and probably-unmaintained code in rhythmbox vs - Users have to find the clients for themselves. Some are packaged by distributions, which helps. Otherwise, listing them on the website is good, but links do rot sometimes. - Users have to run client programs manually in most cases. This can be fixed, but it's not easy to do this in a user-friendly manner as far as I can tell. For me at least, this results in just not using the client, rather than making the effort to run it. I think there are some cases, such as lirc support, where the tradeoff isn't worth it. I can't see anything on http://gnome.org/projects/rhythmbox/utils.html that I think could reasonably be built in, though. In any case, if people are going to continue to make patches like this (and it seems they are), then I think they should at least be good patches. -jonathan _______________________________________________ rhythmbox-devel mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/rhythmbox-devel
