On Friday 12 February 2010 21:23:41 pk wrote:
> Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> > so how do you propose that a network connection manager tells a broweser
> > or mail app that they are offline?
>
> I don't have a network connection manager and I don't need that function
> in a browser, mail client or any other app.
>
> > And don't start with sockets. That will result in a nightmare. dbus is a
> > clean
>
> I've been using computers way before D-Bus came into action and I never
> suffered from nightmares... ;-)
>
> To me D-Bus is a bit like this:
> Programmer1: (waves hands in the air) Oh, oh I know, let's invent a new
> protocol that lets applications talk to each other. Way cool!
> Programmer2: Oh yeah, it will simplify the situation so much. Let's do it!
> Pragmatic guy: So, what are these apps going to talk about?
> Programmer1 & 2 (in unison): Shut up! Don't spoil our fun by asking such
> stupid questions!
>
> But, this discussion is quite pointless as I see it since the people who
> program these apps (like programmer1 & 2 above) are the ones who gets to
> choose and most people just doesn't bother with the details; they just
> throw more ("bigger", "better", "faster") hardware in an ever-evolving
> race. Far from the unix philosophy of KISS. That's at least the way I
> see it...
Is it really so hard to understand that dbus replaces functionality THAT YOU
ALREADY HAVE MULTIPLE TIMES?
dbus is a net gain - it takes multiple implementations of similar goals and
puts them in one place, reducing the duplication.
If you haven't already spotted it, this is the same process of logic that lead
to dynamic libraries. Do you consider dynamic libraries to be a good thing?
--
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
