On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 10:18:42 +0100 (MET) [EMAIL PROTECTED] babbled: > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Gesendet: Freitag, 03. Februar 2006 08:55 > An: Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > CC: [email protected] > Betreff: Re: systray specification... > > On Friday, 03 February 2006 08:55, Aaron wrote: > > On Friday 03 February 2006 00:48, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > > > On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 23:53:08 -0700 "Aaron J. Seigo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > babbled: > > > > > > > > hm. the lack of a widget set (and therefore being able to be a > > > > bare-bones app) is very enticing. but really only if we aren't using > > > > X11 because otherwise you may as well have a toolkit around ;) > > > > > > i do see your point - though any other means of being a systray app will > > > require advertising data and likely via some ipc socket - and in the end > > > we then either reuire dbus (may as well require xlib then anyway - we are > > > just substituting one fat lib for another) or come up with some other > > > heavy protocol that one way or another sucks in some big library for > > > communications (ICE, or one of dozens of other ipc mechanisms) - the only > > > other sane way i see is putting data in files that are shared and > > > opened/read. this sounds nice from barebones side of things but loses us > > > network transparency of a display : ( either way - any mechanism we come > > > up with that is network transparent like the rest of the display is, will > > > end up being as complex as using xlib i think- unless of course you have > > > some suggestion - something i haven't thought of? please braindump! :) > > > > well, it's not so much the size / complexity issue as it is ubiquity of the > > mechanism. while apache (to pick an absurd example) certainly will never > > write to xlib and require an X connection around, it just may use dbus. the > > less absurd example is the linux kernel which already uses dbus for > > hardware events via hal. imagine if hal were able to export its own systray > > entry. nice, but not likely not possible if we require xlib. > > I don't know much about this topic at all, but after reading this I thought > that you could maybe solve this problem with a proxy. > > So the standard desktop apps use X11 IPC for the systray. While non-X11 > daemons like hal talk to a proxy over dbus that does the communication over > X11 with the systray for them. > > Just a thought. :-)
technically i would say thats the most desireable mechanism. a back end daemon that a front end "systray hook" talks to and the systray icon hook generates the systray icon etc. > Bye, Christian > -- ------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" -------------- The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler) [EMAIL PROTECTED] 裸好多 Tokyo, Japan (東京 日本) _______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
