On Donnerstag 11 Februar 2010, Zeerak Waseem wrote: > On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 23:53:10 +0100, Volker Armin Hemmann > > <volkerar...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > On Donnerstag 11 Februar 2010, Zeerak Waseem wrote: > >> Particularly when your wm can handle all the inter-app > >> communication that is necessary without dbus. > > > > the problem is the WM can NOT handle all the inter-app communication > > that is > > needed by a modern desktop environment. Especially, when you have apps > > that > > are just frames around building blocks that have to talk to each other > > (like > > for example konqueror, that is just a gui to the dolphin, khtml, konsole, > > gwenview kparts). > > But it seems to me, that the apps that need the communication are in DE's. > Which is fine, I just think that if you're choosing a smaller WM (Openbox, > awesome, JWM, etc.), where there isn't a need for an inter-app > communication that extensive, then it's a bit of an overkill really.
so how do you propose that a network connection manager tells a broweser or mail app that they are offline? And don't start with sockets. That will result in a nightmare. dbus is a clean solution to a huge problem. Apps have to talk to each other. The only way to keep it sane is a standardized IPC daemon like dbus.
