| 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 ;-) |
Archives