| 1 |
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Michael Mol <mikemol@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Stroller |
| 4 |
>>> Reading that blog entry I found discouraging the idea that dbus might be required on my servers in the future, if systemd becomes popular with distros. |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> I don't see the problem with D-Bus. It's small (the only hard |
| 7 |
>> dependency it has is an XML parser), and it provides the Linux/UNIX |
| 8 |
>> (de facto) standard interprocess communication system. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> My chief gripe with D-Bus is that I've had X sessions disappear out |
| 11 |
> from under me as a consequence of the daemon being restarted. Having a |
| 12 |
> single point of failure like that is very, very scary. Otherwise, I |
| 13 |
> like what it tries to do. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Restarting or dying? If it's dying, it's a bug and should be reported. |
| 16 |
I haven't had a crash in dbus in years, and I think pretty much |
| 17 |
everyone agrees it's pretty stable nowadays. It even tries to handle |
| 18 |
gracefully thins like out-of-memory errors and things like that. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
If it's restarting, why on earth will someone restart the system bus |
| 21 |
with active X sessions? If the dbus daemon is restarted, it has to |
| 22 |
kick all the apps from the bus, including the session manager. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Regards. |
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Canek Peláez Valdés |
| 27 |
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación |
| 28 |
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México |
Archives