DBUS?

[Scott James Remnant]

On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 16:16 +0000, Alex Smith wrote:

> Johan Kiviniemi wrote:
> > I take it your concern is the daemon, not the protocol?
> > 
> > I don't think a dependency on the dbus daemon has been even considered.
> > AFAIK programs may speak the dbus protocol over a fd without a need for
> > the daemon. And as a protocol, i guess it's as good as any.
> > 
> > If upstart were to be already speaking dbus-the-protocol, adding
> > *optional* support for dbus-the-daemon would be effortless.
> > 
> > Feel free to correct me if i'm wrong. :-)
> 
> Ah, but there is still one problem there - if you link against libdbus, 
> and libdbus' .so version changes, you'll get link errors and therefore 
> the system would not boot (until upstart is recompiled), correct?
> 
This is also true for the C library!  The dbus API is becoming stable
now, along with the protocol, so this is an imaginary problem.

The reason for thinking about this is that upstart currently implements
its own IPC protocol, which means applications need to link to
libupstart.so to talk to it -- it may be easier to use dbus as the IPC
protocol instead.

As Johan says, the likely implementation is to use peer-to-peer dbus
without the system daemon; with communication with the system bus itself
an optional thing.

Scott
-- 
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen?  Are you going round the twist?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/upstart-devel/attachments/20061106/a5590624/attachment.pgp