Linked by Dennis Heuer on Mon 28th Nov 2005 16:31 UTC
General Development The ICT-Business is known for strategic terms. One of those terms, which was used quite a lot over this year, is services. The term is interpretable; however, the focus was on technical concepts implemented to serve for a sharply rendered use case, like managing user data and authentication. Services in that sense are served over a type of network. Despite the first impression, they are not served to a user but to a calling application. This client utilizes one or more services for internal purposes. Though, the user may be expected to provide data (the password, for example) or to wait and receive a gathered result.
Thread beginning with comment 66023
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Bonobo ?
by MightyPenguin on Mon 28th Nov 2005 18:22 UTC in reply to "Bonobo ?"
MightyPenguin
Member since:
2005-11-18

I think the evidence shows bonobo sucks. It's a great idea but somehow not too many people seem to be using it. This all becomes clear when you compare it to kparts or kio (sorry if I messed up the names) which just plain rock and work everywhere in KDE, while bonobo doesn't seem to have that level of ubiquity.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Bonobo ?
by thebluesgnr on Mon 28th Nov 2005 19:22 in reply to "RE: Bonobo ?"
thebluesgnr Member since:
2005-11-14

I'm not sure if Kparts being superior (if it actually is) has much to do with it; Nautilus doesn't use bonobo extensively by design (it's restricted to file managing, not web browsing, document viewing, etc).

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Bonobo ?
by on Mon 28th Nov 2005 20:18 in reply to "RE[2]: Bonobo ?"
Member since:

Nautilus no longer uses Bonobo in any fashion. I believe Gedit is looking to remove Bonobo in the next major release.

So, GNOME is moving away from Bonobo and is focusing more on ABI stable shared libraries and in-proc plug-ins.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: Bonobo ?
by molnarcs on Mon 28th Nov 2005 21:12 in reply to "RE[2]: Bonobo ?"
molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

"I'm not sure if Kparts being superior (if it actually is) has much to do with it;"

Kparts uses DCOP and DBUS was inspired by DCOP, that's why it was mentioned I guess. It would be wonderful if both KDE and GNOME used the same framework for communication between various services, but I don't know what plans KDE has. I have read some months ago that DBUS and DCOP serve the same purpose, and the latter being more mature and proven, at that time there was no intention to switch to dbus (dbus also was lacking in some areas).

Basically: DBUS intends to be what DCOP is (and was for a few years) for KDE, only it's a GNOME thing. There is some effort to make it appealing for KDE as well (standardizing on one framework is a nice idea) - but whether or not KDE4 will use dbus or not remains to be seen (again, this depends on many things: whether or not DBUS can catch up with DCOP by then, the difficulty of switching to DBUS, and afterall, it already has the functionality of DBUS in DCOP)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Bonobo ?
by Sphinx on Tue 29th Nov 2005 20:55 in reply to "RE: Bonobo ?"
Sphinx Member since:
2005-07-09

No, I believe it's CORBA that sucks, bonobo is just another implementation of it.

Reply Parent Score: 1