Re: how much bonobo

[Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>]

On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 02:49 -0700, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Hi
> 
> 
> > But, here in this list i found that is not so true.
> > Here i get advised
> > that many applications like nautilus don't use
> > bonobo anymore.
> > 
> > I just want to know why is that 'pilosophy' change.
> 
> the philosophy hasnt changed as much as the
> implementation has. Bonobo was found to be a heavy
> weight IPC mechanism and it was not designed to work
> across desktop environments. dbus in contrast is
> designed to be similar to dcop in kde as well as a
> replacement for bonobo.
> 
> so applications would still communicate with each
> other  using dbus. 
> 

I somewhat disagree. The "philosophy" of GNOME never was (or never
should have been) "to be made up of distributed components" - that's an
implementation detail, not a goal. D-BUS doesn't change this.

One way to phrase it is that dcop/d-bus are intended to be IPC systems
and not component systems:
http://dbus.freedesktop.org/doc/dbus-faq.html#components

Havoc