Am Montag, 19. Dezember 2005 18:15 schrieben Sie: Hi,
> If we don't have a GNOME file picker available, f.e., we > use our XUL one. Bringing up a GTK1-era file-selection-bag-of- > widgets instead would make us frown, or even use coarse language. Actually this is exactly the our common goal! > > IMHO the RUDI approach allows to share this effort in an efficient > > manner as > > the ISVs don't have to care much about than simply using it. > > I think I need to understand RUDI better to appreciate what the > benefits are in exchange for requiring apps to go through DBUS and > XML (or some such?) to get a file dialog open. And I already have a > fair bit of XML stuff at my disposal, perhaps unlike many other ISVs. I am sorry that the documentation is so sparse and incomplete. RUDI does _not_ require the ISVs to explicitly use DBUS or parse _any_ XML. All the complexity here is hidden in a toolkit specific RUDI library. The idea is that Java people can use the Java RUDI lib, GNOME 3rd party developers can use the gtk/gnome flavour of the RUDI lib and Qt developers can use a Qt-like API. In principle this means that the _implementation_ (not only language bindings) are toolkit specific in order to make everyone feel like a 1st class citizen. The RUDI lib then has the job to talk the XML based protocoll across a transport mechanism e.g. DBUS(*) to the RUDI service provider (a desktop service available for GNOME, KDE and maybe even others). Regards, -- martin (*) I am refering always to dbus because it has the potential to become cross-platform. From my personal point of view Miguels idea of using plain http is very fine also. -- http://www.erfrakon.com/ Erlewein, Frank, Konold & Partner - Beratende Ingenieure und Physiker _______________________________________________ Desktop_architects mailing list Desktop_architects@lists.osdl.org https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop_architects
