[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: gEDA-dev: DBUS binding to PCB actions

To: gEDA developer mailing list <geda-dev-at-NOSPAMmoria_dot_seul_dot_org>
Subject: Re: gEDA-dev: DBUS binding to PCB actions
From: Ales Hvezda <ahvezda-at-NOSPAMseul_dot_org>
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 00:24:10 -0400
Delivery-Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 00:24:13 -0400
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 07 Oct 2006 17:43:11 BST."<200610071743.13639.peter@peter-b.co.uk> ------
List-Archive: <http://www.seul.org/pipermail/geda-dev>
List-Help: <mailto:geda-dev-request@moria.seul.org?subject=help>
List-Id: gEDA developer mailing list <geda-dev.moria.seul.org>
List-Post: <mailto:geda-dev@moria.seul.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-dev>,<mailto:geda-dev-request@moria.seul.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-dev>,<mailto:geda-dev-request@moria.seul.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply-To: gEDA developer mailing list <geda-dev-at-NOSPAMmoria_dot_seul_dot_org>
Sender: geda-dev-bounces-at-NOSPAMmoria_dot_seul_dot_org

[snip]
>P.S. We've started thinking about how (and whether) to make libgeda=
>D-Bus-aware.

	Interesting.  If it is an optional dependancy (or if has
a striking advantage or benefit), than I'm all for using dbus.  However,
I do understand, appreciate, and mostly support (on the fence) the
recent resistance voiced here due to portability issues (_if_ they are
really issues).

								-Ales



_______________________________________________
geda-dev mailing list
geda-dev@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-dev

References:
- Re: gEDA-dev: DBUS binding to PCB actions
  - From: Peter TB Brett

Prev by Date: Re: gEDA-dev: DBUS binding to PCB actions
Next by Date: Re: gEDA-dev: Re: Cygwin port
Prev by thread: Re: gEDA-dev: DBUS binding to PCB actions
Next by thread: Re: gEDA-dev: DBUS binding to PCB actions
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread