Re: XMMS Second Generation - Comments.

[Tobias Rundström <tru xmms org>]

Havoc,

On tis, 2003-08-26 at 21:31, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> > Is this meant to be interpreted lowlevel API that we use today will not
> > be stable and that we SHOULD use the glib wrapper later?
> 
> The lowlevel API and ABI will be frozen with 1.0, for now it certainly 
> isn't stable (I just spent a few days collecting feedback from KDE
> hackers that will result in some large changes for example).
> See the README and your compile line containing
> -DDBUS_API_SUBJECT_TO_CHANGE for the details ;-)
> I also warned you guys about this on IRC a couple months ago.

Yes I know this (as you say, we DO compile with API_SUBJECT_TO_CHANGE)
but I was wondering in the future if you will change the lowlevel api
but will keep the highlevel api stable. But you've already answerd that
question.

> > How is QT support progressing?
> 
> Nobody has been working on it so far, but there have been many
> discussions about it here at Nove Hrady. So this should evolve over
> time. Based on comments here most likely it won't be fully locked down
> until KDE 4, if KDE chooses to adopt D-BUS in some way.

Ok, we might end up writing a C++ class for wraping our clientlib before
that.

> My presentation from here has a slide with what "adopt" could mean. 
> KDE developers still have very diverse views on when/what should be
> done with dbus, and in large part I think it depends on what code is
> written and how well that code works.

Nice to see that KDE developers wants to put some force behind it too.

//Tobias