Mindaugas wrote: > Hello, > [here is a continuation of discussion started in Bug #2509]
Yes, but I said, use the mailinglist. >> As said, that'd be overhead (-> maintaince). D-Bus is there as standard >> lightweight desktop IPC framework. There's no need to support different IPC >> mechanisms. > I did not asserted that using D-Bus is wrong in general. I do not know how > wide XFce uses D-Bus, but XFce 4.2.3.2 (in same Slackware) is working > just fine without D-Bus. I do not know which features of D-Bus uses Thunar, > but without D-Bus, it works quite fine, except those refreshes posted in > Bug #2509. > In this situation, for that window refresh, I would prefer SysV IPC from the > C library, rather than D-Bus. We're not talking about Xfce 4.2. SysV IPC is considered obsolete, and using both D-Bus and other IPC mechanisms is unnecessary overhead. I don't get why you want that additional overhead. >> It has nothing to do with desktop apps, but it's a general fact: If you >> duplicate functionality, you'll have overhead. So, what's easier on >> resources: (a) every application implements it's own IPC or (b) all >> applications use D-Bus? > Well, looking at this concrete window refresh situation, I would not call a > combination of msgsnd()/msgrcv() neither overhead, nor duplication of complex > functionality. > a) I would agree if it would be a complex and necessary implementation of IPC. > b) I would strongly agree if really all or at least many applications would > use D-Bus. But as mentioned, there are cases when D-Bus is not used at all, > because it is simply not needed. We're not talking about a specific "window refresh" command. You should really have a look at the source. BTW: I already told you that the kernel can notify applications about such changes in the file system. Install Gamin/FAM. >> Dependencies = less overhead in most cases. Imagine, you'd link all >> applications statically. That means no dependencies. Juhu. So, it's >> lightweight, right?... Well, of course not. > Please do not understand me incorrect, I did not asserted that using > dependences is wrong. Here is the essential point - dependences should be > choosed in rational way. Huge amount of third party dependences, used by > single applications is neither convenient, nor usable. I would not call it > "less overhead", when installation of application costs 10x bigger amount of > nobody used and nobody needed dependences. There are too much and too > useless. > Anyway, there are different point of views and different user bases. In this > case, one could raise a question, how XFce goals differs from Gnome or KDE... Dude, again: What is less overhead: Reimplementing stuff 10 times or using a shared lib that can be mmap()'ed in 10 processes? This is an essentional point in modern software engineering; it's even more important from the maintaince POV. >> As said, this is something that most people don't get, and as such it's >> stated very often and so people joining the Linux/Unix communities raise up >> with the belief that less dependencies mean less wasted resources. > Maybe. But I think we are talking about user needs and point of view into the > architecture of both the application and system. And seems you forget old, > conservative rationalists in these communities ;) If "users need" lightweight and stable applications then code reuse and less wasted resources look way more promising, don't you think so? Benedikt _______________________________________________ Thunar-dev mailing list [email protected] http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/thunar-dev
