Clarification on upstart-0.5 and dbus usage

[Saravanan Shanmugham (sarvi)]

Actually I seem to agree with Scott on this, that it is OK for Upstart
to depepend on a System Bus( or some key piece of infrastruture) to be
fully funcitonal.

As I understand it, Upstart will be able to start/stop/restart processes
without D-Bus. Only when the rest of the world wants to talk to Upstart
is D-Bus really needed and it seems reasonable to require it. 

Here I am using the word D-Bus in place of a need for a reasonably
flexible communication/messaging mechanism.
Until D-Bus becomes as ubiquituous as Unix domain sockets, tying
communication with D-Bus.

But that said, D-Bus is a fine choice for now. I hope though, the
Upstart community is open to code contributions from us that allow for
modular alternatives to D-Bus. Ofcourse without compromising on
performance or clean code.

Thx,
Sarvi


>-----Original Message-----
>From: upstart-devel-bounces at lists.ubuntu.com 
>[mailto:upstart-devel-bounces at lists.ubuntu.com] On Behalf Of 
>Garrett Cooper
>Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 3:25 PM
>To: Michael Biebl
>Cc: upstart-devel at lists.ubuntu.com; Casey Dahlin; Scott James Remnant
>Subject: Re: Clarification on upstart-0.5 and dbus usage
>
>On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 3:19 PM, Michael Biebl 
><mbiebl at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2008/6/19 Scott James Remnant <scott at netsplit.com>:
>>> On Thu, 2008-06-19 at 00:10 +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
>>>
>>>> 2008/6/18 Scott James Remnant <scott at netsplit.com>:
>>>> > On Wed, 2008-06-18 at 16:11 -0400, Casey Dahlin wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> The DBus interface can be accessed in one of 2 ways. One is 
>>>> >> actually running the dbus daemon, and accessing the 
>>>> >> com.ubuntu.Upstart object on the system bus.
>>>> >>
>>>> > Actually, this is the only supported way.
>>>> >
>>>> > While there is another, secret, way -- it's not intended for 
>>>> > general use and may change or be taken away without notice.
>>>>
>>>> Hm, I'd actually prefer somehow, if core tools, like 
>>>> initctl/runlevel/telinit etc would talk to upstart 
>directly without 
>>>> the need of a running dbus system bus.
>>>>
>>> Any particular reason?
>>
>> - Someone deletes his dbus job file.
>> - dbus-daemon fails to start (misconfiguration, whatever)
>> - upstart would be usable without the complete dbus package 
>(it would 
>> only have to depend on libdbus)
>>
>> It's more of a gut feeling, that relying on the system bus for these 
>> core tools, makes upstart more fragile and error prone.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Michael
>
>I have to agree with Michael. More possible points of human 
>input for upstart during critical stages in system startup 
>just make it more brittle when dealing with confused users or 
>misconfigured systems, input from rogue scripts, etc, esp when 
>dbus is a shared 'resource'
>amongst different system applications.
>-Garrett
>
>--
>upstart-devel mailing list
>upstart-devel at lists.ubuntu.com
>Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
>https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/upstart-devel
>