| 1 |
On 13/08/2014 22:28, Grant Edwards wrote: |
| 2 |
>> Have you considered a really simple solution like dbus? |
| 3 |
> I don't know if I would call dbus "really simple". :) |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> My current implementation uses Unix domain sockets (which is what dbus |
| 6 |
> usually uses, isn't it?), and I'm trying to figure out how to reduce |
| 7 |
> overhead and latency. dbus would add even more overhead (it has code |
| 8 |
> to deal with byte ordering, serial/cookies, and various other features |
| 9 |
> and abstractions). I'm not sure it's really practical for |
| 10 |
> high-frequency events (e.g 100-200 events per second). |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
To be honest, I'm somewhat out of my depth in this area. Sure, I can |
| 14 |
discuss it but you want details, and that I can't really provide. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I mentioned dbus really just as a way to encourage you to think out of |
| 17 |
the box a little. Maybe it fits your needs, maybe not. But at least you |
| 18 |
would have given it some thought :-) |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Reading through the rest of the thread, perhaps dbus isn't suitable for |
| 21 |
this. You have lots of messages and they don't seem to be text-based. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 26 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives