From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp0 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id IMwGOuAdpV+LagAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 06 Nov 2020 09:56:48 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp0 with LMTPS id 0KkYNuAdpV8aPgAA1q6Kng (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 06 Nov 2020 09:56:48 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D5839404CE for ; Fri, 6 Nov 2020 09:56:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:55604 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kayUB-000840-Kc for larch@yhetil.org; Fri, 06 Nov 2020 04:56:47 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:42380) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kayTW-00083B-Ds for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Nov 2020 04:56:07 -0500 Received: from relay5-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.197]:35289) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kayTR-0005kX-Nx for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Nov 2020 04:56:05 -0500 X-Originating-IP: 90.92.160.122 Received: from bababa (lfbn-idf2-1-1094-122.w90-92.abo.wanadoo.fr [90.92.160.122]) (Authenticated sender: mail@ambrevar.xyz) by relay5-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3524E1C0016; Fri, 6 Nov 2020 09:55:57 +0000 (UTC) From: Pierre Neidhardt To: Danny Milosavljevic , Leo Prikler Subject: Re: GNOME in Guix In-Reply-To: <20201103101430.711ce21a@scratchpost.org> References: <9324ae97b8c1c2452386154d56922558b8274812.camel@student.tugraz.at> <20201103101430.711ce21a@scratchpost.org> Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2020 10:55:57 +0100 Message-ID: <87o8kavmfm.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Received-SPF: pass client-ip=217.70.183.197; envelope-from=mail@ambrevar.xyz; helo=relay5-d.mail.gandi.net X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/11/06 04:55:59 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 3.11 and newer [fuzzy] X-Spam_score_int: 2 X-Spam_score: 0.2 X-Spam_bar: / X-Spam_report: (0.2 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD=0.499, PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD=1.647, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: guix-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" X-Scanner: ns3122888.ip-94-23-21.eu Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -0.61 X-TUID: EvYD1mZ0cXe5 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Danny Milosavljevic writes: >> [expose guix via dbus] > > You should keep in mind for this approach: impedance mismatch, slowness, > different semantics, protocol versioning, and bugs in dbus (the latter > of which I also regularily experience in guix--dbus bus hangs etc). > > The advantages you listed of better and easier privilege checking are > valid, though. > > (In addition, I don't want a hard dependency to gtk+ in the guix package = manager. > But that can be avoided in other ways, too). To add on top of what Danny said, I have had experience in writing GUI over D-Bus with Nyxt: up to version 1.5 (when it was called Next), we used to have a C server that would communicate over D-Bus to the Common Lisp client. We faced many issues. =2D Performance was OK but could be critically bad on low-end hardware. =2D Code is cumbersome to write (well, it's C :p), but maybe it's less of a problem if the server is Guix. =2D Extensibility takes a huge toll because any modification to the server means the client must be updated and vice-versa. =2D What did it for us was input support: we had to encode and decode input events and share them over D-Bus. This was very brittle, had tons of bugs and killed input method support. I don't think it's doable to be honest. When it comes to Guix, if the server does not deal with keybindings and if the UI responsiveness only depends on the client (meaning that no user input result depends on a result returned by the server), then I suppose that D-Bus could work. But I would go for GI first before going down this road. Cheers! =2D-=20 Pierre Neidhardt https://ambrevar.xyz/ --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQFGBAEBCAAwFiEEUPM+LlsMPZAEJKvom9z0l6S7zH8FAl+lHa0SHG1haWxAYW1i cmV2YXIueHl6AAoJEJvc9Jeku8x/DMAIAKZgSVuTGK8eA9em172HQHezDbl0DXYZ mTzZJGLCYTsWw0ENTU4QUc2ou7Tqnjd445erk5B648e1u55A7DNCqmmFlUd4cRRV sYwU4wy+J3wGulicHmGUIm7+CbMU57uBJlA6vJB7LL9NBn1RXD+bdaSFpShMETVF tnJ/ACDSCZ/p3Kl7Fu1HA3Me3jalUjGWOiPhV5piGfplam/saKvUbrJnTCrioLo/ hfHWW+suPrVMGZNaBgTj+Q30DfPxjx9dmLcElAY7bNwaRR8kILdHWAE4YSQhYidE 7lCY0V7rysLhbG6CRRdf5D4/CAv7hg4v8uIzBT457Yx5G0GfJ6yPhkA= =x33J -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--