On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 9:46 PM, Thomas Voß <thomas.v...@canonical.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 8:16 PM, Alexander Antimonov > <alexander.antimonov.od...@gmail.com> wrote: >> An application to be spawned doesn't need to know any "names", if it is not >> supposed to spawn anything in its turn. >> > > That is where I do disagree, an application should know about URLs (or > interfaces) that it wants to use. x-callback is a really good example > illustrating the clean and flexible URL handling model as opposed to > invoking by name. At any rate, a fallback might be: > > app://com.ubuntu.camera/take_picture > My first message on the topic describes how to allow applications to spawn other exact application. And also describes a way to call general handling app if first app doesn't care. In the latter case application doesn't need to know names, it just needs to know URL and/or MIME-type. If your fallback example shows how to spawn exact application, where com.ubuntu.camera can be any "com.ubuntu.developer.username.myapp", then OK, it's fine by me.
> Ubuntu obviously would know about this mapping, but an app depending > on a specific other application for certain functionality results in > tight coupling of these two applications from my pov. The URL handling > approach pointing to specific functionality as opposed to specific > apps should solve all of the cross-app use-cases and still prevent > from tight coupling. > > Thomas > We live in the real world and I predict there will be apps that want to run other unique, one and only app. The "prevent from tight coupling" emphasis seems does not allow them to do it. -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone Post to : ubuntu-phone@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
