Hello Kay,
Kay Ramme wrote:
>> I understood that we need to Make "bridge" for converting the existing
>> protocol (e.g. Uno) to "super" protocol and for converting "super"
>> protocol to existing protocol.
>>
>> If you mean "super" protocol as "the least common multiple" protocol,
>> our vision is equal to it. But, it is difficult to implement by
>> only our power.
>
> This seems to be another argument in favor of re-using something already
> there ...
I also agree with re-using something already there.
But it is politically difficult to choose QtDBus, ORBit, XPCOM, or UNO,
I think.
So, I decided to make Common Desktop Infrastructure based on D-BUS.
>> In the first place, in now opensource desktop community, is selecting
>> one component technology possible?
>
> I don't see a reason why not.
If one component model is chosen, other project developers feel to
be controled by using the component model via bridge. Even if nobody
means it.
This is the reason which I considered.
Regards,
--
Daisuke Kameda
Japan KDE Users' Group: President
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kde.gr.jp/~daisuke/
immodule for Qt Project: Project Maintainer
http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software_2fimmodule_2dqt
SMG Co., Ltd.: Engineering Creator
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.smg.co.jp/
http://www.smg.co.jp/opensource/CommonDesktopInfrastructure/
_______________________________________________
Desktop_architects mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop_architects
