On Fri, 2009-04-24 at 09:52 -0400, Celeste Lyn Paul wrote:
> At the same time, I'm a little confused. Isn't the messaging indicator also
> the source of a message log? In that case, why would it disappear? Do you
> have
> to clear the log before it disappears or does simply opening the indicate
On April 24, 2009 4:42:41 pm Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > Yes, although talking with one of the developers (notmart), he's not sure
> > of
> > the best way for them to replace the notification system. David and Ted
> > should
> > probably just talk to them in more detail about it.
>
> I do hope repla
> On Friday 24 April 2009 10:54:02 am Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> > On Friday 24 April 2009 12:50:52 am Ted Gould wrote:
>> >> I guess I feel that it would need to be in the systray if we wanted
>> it
>> >> to be consistent with other things in the systray. But, correct me
>> if
>> >> I'm wrong, the
On Friday 24 April 2009 10:54:02 am Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > On Friday 24 April 2009 12:50:52 am Ted Gould wrote:
> >> I guess I feel that it would need to be in the systray if we wanted it
> >> to be consistent with other things in the systray. But, correct me if
> >> I'm wrong, there are other
> I see what you mean Scott, but by consistency I simply meant same messages
> in the fashion that DE's user is used to seeing them in. Whether KDE or
> Gnome, the messages that are passed should be the same context, displayed
> according to that DE's notifications standard. Thanks for clarificat
I see what you mean Scott, but by consistency I simply meant same messages
in the fashion that DE's user is used to seeing them in. Whether KDE or
Gnome, the messages that are passed should be the same context, displayed
according to that DE's notifications standard. Thanks for clarification on
t
> So basically all messages *would *be unified based on the fact that it is
> using whatever means the DE already has in place? I like the idea of
> passing off the display to the system. However, it still leaves the
> question
> of which means on KDE to utilize though, correct? SysTray or Plasmo
> On Friday 24 April 2009 12:50:52 am Ted Gould wrote:
>
>> I guess I feel that it would need to be in the systray if we wanted it
>> to be consistent with other things in the systray. But, correct me if
>> I'm wrong, there are other things in the KDE panel besides the systray.
>> It seems like we
>
> This is what the Galago notification spec does. This is what is used by
> libnotify and notify-osd. KDE uses a variant of this spec but it's not
> too different (I was able to make KDE follow the Galago spec with a 3
> line patches).
>
> I hope that both parties eventually agree on a new unifie
Roderick B. Greening wrote:
> Not sure how best to phrase this... however, here goes.
>
> If we develop a specification and present to f.d.o, which would allow all
> DE's
> to integrate this spec via a low level API, which would send D-BUS
> notifications and allow any "listener" to pick them u
So basically all messages *would *be unified based on the fact that it is
using whatever means the DE already has in place? I like the idea of
passing off the display to the system. However, it still leaves the question
of which means on KDE to utilize though, correct? SysTray or Plasmoid?
If a
On Friday 24 April 2009 12:50:52 am Ted Gould wrote:
> I guess I feel that it would need to be in the systray if we wanted it
> to be consistent with other things in the systray. But, correct me if
> I'm wrong, there are other things in the KDE panel besides the systray.
> It seems like we're mor
Not sure how best to phrase this... however, here goes.
If we develop a specification and present to f.d.o, which would allow all DE's
to integrate this spec via a low level API, which would send D-BUS
notifications and allow any "listener" to pick them up and decide what and how
to display the
On April 24, 2009 10:49:09 am Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > Scott Kitterman wrote:
> As you may have heard, I really like the current KDE (plasma)
> notifications system. I think there are some areas where some of the good
> ideas from notfiy-osd could be the basis for enhancements to plasma
> notifi
> Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>> David Barth wrote:
>>>
fade_in/out and show/hide should be reconsidered. The Plasma API
should
help make that more generic.
>>> Depending on how we want to unify notification handling, we may or may
>>> not need to use the Plasma API:
>>
>> I thought the
I think we need to ensure that if the DE is KDE, then all apps communicate
with the KDE notifications. and similarly under a Gnome DE, that all apps
communicate using the Gnome notifications.
If this means we need to extend Plasma, and propose patches back to KDE for
Plasma, then I am all for i
Aurélien Gâteau wrote:
> Solution 2 makes GNOME notifications use Plasma notification system.
Oups, sorry. It makes GNOME applications use Plasma notifications on KDE
and KDE applications use notify-osd on GNOME.
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~
Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> David Barth wrote:
>>
>>> fade_in/out and show/hide should be reconsidered. The Plasma API should
>>> help make that more generic.
>> Depending on how we want to unify notification handling, we may or may
>> not need to use the Plasma API:
>
> I thought the goal was about
> David Barth wrote:
>
>> fade_in/out and show/hide should be reconsidered. The Plasma API should
>> help make that more generic.
>
> Depending on how we want to unify notification handling, we may or may
> not need to use the Plasma API:
I thought the goal was about the user experience? I'd like
David Barth wrote:
> There are parts of the existing "API" (rather the exposed GObject
> interface) that are there for wrong reasons, like "need to stabilize and
> release soon, so no time for fancy refactoring", though we still did
> some of that up to late in the development cycle.
>
> What I t
David Barth wrote:
> fade_in/out and show/hide should be reconsidered. The Plasma API should
> help make that more generic.
Depending on how we want to unify notification handling, we may or may
not need to use the Plasma API:
# Solution 1
- We modify notify-osd to handle both Galago and KDE d
Aurélien Gâteau wrote on 23/04/09 10:53:
>...
> I have been going through notify-osd code lately and discussed it with
> Mirco a bit. It seems we can provide a Qt implementation for notify-osd
> while trying to keep as much code in common as possible. To do so we
> need to split notify-osd in two l
22 matches
Mail list logo
