Christoph Wickert 提到: > Am Donnerstag, den 18.06.2009, 00:10 +0800 schrieb Fred Chien: > >> Christoph Wickert: >> >>> Am Dienstag, den 16.06.2009, 11:22 +0800 schrieb Fred Chien: >>> >>> >>> >>>> So the project will has three parts to be maintained: >>>> 1. lxnm (LXNM Daemon and command line utility - lxnetctl) >>>> 2. lxpanel-netstat (LXPanel plugin) >>>> 3. lxnm-applet (standalone applet) >>>> >>>> For the current version in SVN, lxnm can be working now, we can using >>>> lxnetctl utility to connect to lxnm daemon to control our networking >>>> devices and get informations include ethernet and wireless interface. >>>> >>>> BTW, I am now working on lxnm-applet to implement a graphical LXNM >>>> client to display and control network devices. >>>> >>>> >>> Any particular reason not to use NeworkManager and write two tools of >>> their own instead? Why not make lxnm-applet work on top of >>> NetworkManager? NM already provides dbus and commandline interfaces and >>> a stable API. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Christoph >>> >>> >>> >> Agree so. NetworkManager has full functions to support network >> connections operations, we don't have any reason to rewrite a new >> utility instead of that. There is a problem that NetworkManager is using >> dbus to communicate between daemon and applet, and also it has some >> complicated design cause it is heavy and not suitable for some low >> resource machines. >> > > LXDE will rely on dbus anyway, so IMO dbus is no problem. IMO we really > need dbus, how else would you advertise the current connection status to > apps that are aware of it. > > Well, LXDE will support dbus, but not necessary to rely on dbus. Because we will try to do anything to avoid to use dbus to make it has less dependencies. It's undeniable that dbus is a very powerful IPC implementation, it can do a lot, but it is not good for all situation. If we just need to transmit simple and short data, using unix-socket is easiler and faster. Why we need to use dbus to copy and handle our data twice for simple communication model? >> Besides, NetworkManager is it is difficult to implement some features >> just like mesh networking for NetworkManager, so we need flexible >> architecture. That's why rewrite a new one. >> > > Mesh is no problem here, happily using on my XO with NM. What exactly is > the problem with meshing? Can you tell me more about the other problems > you see? > > Of course mesh is working fine with NM, I mean we cannot easy to use NM to control and configure mesh or other networking stuffs. The problem is how can add those new features to NM? I think it is not easy and fast to implement. And then we can see GUI design issue. In fact, NetworkManager's UI is just a commandline-like GUI, it's geek's toy rather then normal user's tool. You may think it is a Frontend UI issue, but don't forget all of functions of frontend rely on backend daemon support. :-)
Fred >> Fred >> > > Kind regards, > Christoph > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Crystal Reports - New Free Runtime and 30 Day Trial Check out the new simplified licensing option that enables unlimited royalty-free distribution of the report engine for externally facing server and web deployment. http://p.sf.net/sfu/businessobjects _______________________________________________ Lxde-list mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lxde-list
