On 一, 2008-01-07 at 17:14 +0000, Rob Taylor wrote: > == Process Architecture == > > (see attached png) > > In the current system, all IPC is direct between processes, and there > is > the registry daemon that deals with passing events and monitoring X > events and sending DeviceEventListener events. > > The D-Bus session bus already acts as a central process for passing > messages and signals. In this respect it is well suited to acting as a > replacement for the registry daemon. The D-Bus session bus also has > advanced filtering mechanisms for deciding what signals a process > wishes > to receive. Messages can be filtered by object path, interface, and > even > message body. This could allow AT-SPI clients to register to receive > certain events from particular applications, and cut down on IPC > traffic. > > A process will still be required to monitor and forward device events > to > the message bus. The D-Bus bus daemon could be modified to perform > this > task, but it is just as easy to use a separate process. The use of a > separate process will mean the D-Bus session bus can be used. This is > already present in all distributions using D-Bus, making acceptance > easier.
Yes, this is what I am thinking about. One question is how do we handle remote applications that show on the current display? Li _______________________________________________ Gnome-accessibility-devel mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-accessibility-devel
