> This leads easily to the idea of a 'meta-application
> interface' as a core desktop functionality, where users can 'patch'
> applications together graphically (connecting their icons with the
> mouse), save their meta-application to the desktop, and use it as a
> single app. At the very simplest level this allows to use the UNIX
> pipe mechanism graphically: e.g. to print text files as postscript, I
> create a new meta-app (a box with input and optionally output ports),
Sounds like a very nice way to solve the problem of making applications aware of each other.
Actually, we ( myself and a few other people ) have tried the concept of meta applications, but we did it in windows...
What we wanted out of the meta app was stability ( if one part of the app chrashes, you just restart that part while the rest of your app hardly notices ), but it could as well be used for a *wery* nice user integration.
( Just a note about meta apps in windows, and why you havn't heard of it yet...
Windows doesn't like meta apps. In short, a windows meta app will suffer from a lot of restrictions. It is allmost impossible to make a windows meta app with a graphical user interface, so the entire ide'a of Win32 does't really fit togeather with meta apps. But I guess you allready knew that... )
Gnome is a bit CORBA centric...
Would the ide'a be violitated in some way, if the 'meta-application-interface' were constructed using Bonobo instead of pipes?
( Because, only the graphical part would have to be written then... If I understand Bonobo correctly, you allready have the possibility to create meta-apps today... )
bye
// Liss
ps. In other words, I love the idea! :)