Clarification on upstart-0.5 and dbus usage

[Saravanan Shanmugham (sarvi)]

And I completely support that effort. 

Its high time we stepped up a layer from plain Unix domain sockets and
talked a higher level API. And I agree D-Bus is very likely the
equivalent 'Unix Domain Sockets' for this purpose. But unfortunatley its
not there yet. All this means is that D-Bus needs some more time to
mature as a spec and as an implementation to reach that status.

Until then people will want other ways to talk to Upstart, than D-Bus,
for various reasons. Code Size, integratiion with existing communication
infrastructure, etc.  

If my team were to comeup with a modular compile-time plugable interface
between Upstart and D-Bus, would something like Glib Object system be a
good way to do that. If I understand right, D-Bus works Glib Objects and
Glib Object system can be made to work with other messaging mechanisms
as well.

Any other better ways of doing this?

Thx,
Sarvi



>-----Original Message-----
>From: Scott James Remnant [mailto:scott at netsplit.com] 
>Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 5:16 PM
>To: Saravanan Shanmugham (sarvi)
>Cc: Garrett Cooper; Michael Biebl; 
>upstart-devel at lists.ubuntu.com; Casey Dahlin
>Subject: RE: Clarification on upstart-0.5 and dbus usage
>Importance: High
>
>On Wed, 2008-06-18 at 17:04 -0700, Saravanan Shanmugham (sarvi) wrote:
>
>> 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.
>> 
>Would the effort not be better spend fixing whatever 
>problem(s) you have with D-Bus?
>
>It really has become the standard communication mechanism for 
>Linux, and would greatly benefit from an embedded eye.
>
>Scott
>--
>Have you ever, ever felt like this?
>Had strange things happen?  Are you going round the twist?
>