On 12/04/2009 07:24 AM, Jan de Groot wrote:
On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 03:38 +0100, Arvid Picciani wrote:
Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
> What does upstream have to say about this dependency? Does not seem
> 'necessary' to me
http://blogs.igalia.com/itoral/2006/03/30/adding-dbus-support-to-gedit/
priceless finding.
let me sum up:
"
- There is feature X which works very well
- He discovered it doesn't use dbus.
- He starts work on a very complicated patch that makes it use dbus.
Let's sum up:
- there's a feature using a deprecated library (bacon uses the
bonobo-activation framework)
- he discovered the new way to do these things is by replacing it by
dbus
- he starts work on something that replaces bacon/bonobo and uses dbus
Yup. I was just about to say the same thing.
Replacing a non-standard messaging library with dbus - which is
effectively now the new standard messaging library, used in numerous
apps & daemons - sounds sensible to me.
In other words: this isn't a matter of "why does gedit need dbus", but
rather "why does gedit need to use a messaging library at all"?
The answer to *that* question, as he wrote, is so that "when you start a
second Gedit process, it opens a new tab in your current Gedit window
instead of creating a new one".
Perhaps this feature didn't need to be implemented using a messaging
library. But perhaps that did make the most sense for a number of
reasons. I really don't know. And frankly, neither do you. As you're
not a gedit developer, I really can't put much trust in your opinion on
this issue.
DR
