ubuntu-phone team mailing list archive

[Alexander Antimonov <alexander.antimonov.od.ua@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 9:46 PM, Thomas Voß <thomas.voss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 8:16 PM, Alexander Antimonov
> <alexander.antimonov.od.ua@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> An application to be spawned doesn't need to know any "names", if it is not
>> supposed to spawn anything in its turn.
>>
>
> That is where I do disagree, an application should know about URLs (or
> interfaces) that it wants to use. x-callback is a really good example
> illustrating the clean and flexible URL handling model as opposed to
> invoking by name. At any rate, a fallback might be:
>
>   app://com.ubuntu.camera/take_picture
>
My first message on the topic describes how to allow applications to spawn other
exact application. And also describes a way to call general handling
app if first app
doesn't care. In the latter case application doesn't need to know
names, it just needs
to know URL and/or MIME-type.
If your fallback example shows how to spawn exact application, where
com.ubuntu.camera can be any "com.ubuntu.developer.username.myapp", then OK,
it's fine by me.

> Ubuntu obviously would know about this mapping, but an app depending
> on a specific other application for certain functionality results in
> tight coupling of these two applications from my pov. The URL handling
> approach pointing to specific functionality as opposed to specific
> apps should solve all of the cross-app use-cases and still prevent
> from tight coupling.
>
> Thomas
>
We live in the real world and I predict there will be apps that want to run
other unique, one and only app. The "prevent from tight coupling" emphasis
seems does not allow them to do it.