1 |
Alan McKinnon wrote: |
2 |
> dbus is NOT a desktop daemon. This is very important, and that single |
3 |
> misunderstanding is probably behind all the fud you read about it. |
4 |
> |
5 |
> dbus implements a message bus - an amazingly useful thing to have. |
6 |
> |
7 |
> Why do you need or want a message bus? |
8 |
> |
9 |
> You might as well ask why do you need or want any other form of IPC you |
10 |
> already have, as that is what dbus is. It's a very small, light daemon, |
11 |
> can run system-wide or per-session and has the potential to many of the |
12 |
> IPC implementations you already have. Those are the ones that don't |
13 |
> happen to show up in ps so you hear very little whinging about them. |
14 |
|
15 |
You might as well just use the existing IPC mechanisms too, especially on a |
16 |
server. Oh wait, that would take experience and the humility borne of it. |
17 |
|
18 |
> That desktop systems are the main user of dbus at this point in time |
19 |
> doesn't change one bit what dbus is designed to do and it's usefulness. |
20 |
|
21 |
Actually it was designed to be a desktop bus. That its mission has crept, or |
22 |
arguably the "developer" has made a land-grab, doesn't change that. |
23 |
|
24 |
Note I am not saying anything at all about the technical merits of dbus itself. |
25 |
I actually quite like the base protocol, just not all the crap on top of it. |
26 |
Kinda how I feel about the Java VM, fwtw. |
27 |
|
28 |
Regards, |
29 |
steveL |
30 |
-- |
31 |
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-) |