[Xfce4-commits] r25185 - in libfrap/trunk/libfrap/menu: . tests

[Olivier Fourdan]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Brian J. Tarricone wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 22:10:26 +0100 Olivier Fourdan wrote:
> 
>> I'd really prefer 2.8 instead of 2.10, Edgy will ship with 2.8 and
>> setting a dependency on gtk+-2.10 would exclude a large part of our
>> user base.
> 
> I'd agree with that, under the assumption that 4.6 isn't 2 years away
> ^_~.
> 
>> MCS stands for multi-channel settings. It's an enhancement of Xsettings
>> that use X atoms to store key/values.
> [snip]
>> Now, ideally, we should have an Xsettings daemon separate from the UI
>> and separate from the settings storage.
>>
>> It should be as simple to use as the current MCS, ideally with an API
>> that would ease migration of existing apps. Keeping network
>> transparency would be a plus, not necessarily mandatory.
> 
> What is the benefit here, really?  I notice that, when I'm running a
> gtk app from another box displayed locally, it uses the default gtk
> theme rather than the one selected on either box (actually, it's the
> same theme selected on both boxes).  I would think that this network
> transparency would make this work properly, but I guess not.

It does work correctly. But Xsettings set the the *name* of the theme
which means that you must have the theme (the actually gtkrc file)
installed and available on both systems so that gtk can load the values.

> At any rate, I think preserving network transparency is a decent goal,
> but I'm not sure it's the most useful.  Scenario: I walk into a public
> computer lab (that has X11; yeah, I know, rare), sit down, ssh home,
> and run a remote application on the local display.  Do I want the
> app to obey the settings I've set at home, or the settings on the local
> public lab machine?  I'd say I want my settings at home.
> 
> Remember, we're also looking to have a more generic configuration store
> that normal applications will want to use, not just for the desktop
> components.  Running xfdesktop or xfwm4 from a remote machine and
> displaying locally is kinda silly (ignoring thin clients), so I don't
> really know what the network transparency already in MCS buys there.
> 
> There's also nothing that says D-Bus can't run over a network, though
> no one's actually implemented a solution that does it, AFAIK.  (Which I
> suppose is an important point to note.)

I guess we agree here, since I wrote that network transparency is a
plus, not necessarily mandatory ;)

Cheers,
Olivier.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFF/wEgFHBtvh5LRUARAt/6AJ4xS2QmeEnHVH9q2km14yKh22RZrQCg6Exc
gOExx2OjHaTB6oFJ96SkIBc=
=hN6h
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----