Thiago Macieira wrote: > On sexta-feira, 24 de junho de 2016 18:12:25 PDT René J. V. Bertin wrote: >> The remark above did make me wonder if QtDBus couldn't use a >> platform-native backend transparently. It seems unlikely (just as you >> probably cannot replace dbus itself by something that isn't ... dbus) but >> it cannot hurt to ask :) > What do you mean by that? What is a "platform-native backend"?
Something that uses the platform's native desktop bus, as far as something like that exists. > How would it be used transparently? If 2 applications communicate via QtDBus calls it doesn't really matter what QtDBus does, it hides the implementation details. Instead of a daemon there could be an angel that handles the communication ;) > And more importantly, what is any of that different than > what QtDBus does right now? Well, that's the main point, isn't it. Replacing dbus by something that does the same thing almost the same way only in order to avoid using dbus doesn't make a lot of sense. I wasn't wondering aloud how we could do something completely different, but rather what could be improved to make dbus a true cross-platform daemon-based desktop bus service that cannot be accused of being a fish out of the water. R _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
