upstart socket activation

[Lennart Poettering]

On Mon, 28.03.11 09:49, Scott James Remnant (scott at netsplit.com) wrote:

> > Yes, it should.
> >
> > In fact we tried to get Scott into a discussion about a common API
> > definition for this and other similar smaller interfaces for usage in
> > daemons. Alas, Scott's only reply was that our approach was "too
> > simple", and nothing more specific.
> >
> No, you have never tried to get me into a discussion about anything.

Mind if I publish the mails I sent you and your responses?

Do we really need to play that game?

> Every now and then you pop up and tell me that I should do things your
> way, then when I try and engage with you, you disappear and after a
> while, the cycle starts all over again.

Oh, right. You engaged with me? I kinda felt talking to /dev/null when I
sent you mails about these proposals...

> You can twist my words, but fortunately you can't twist mailing list
> archives. Let's look at the discussion last time I tried to work with
> you to create an interface together:
> 
>         http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dbus/2010-December/013883.html
> 
>         And I have at no point said I'm not interested in defining common
>         specs, all I've said is that I'm not interested in using your
>         interfaces as the common spec.  I'm more than happy to sit down and
>         work something else that's fresh.

> 
> Seems I said pretty much the exact same thing last year. And what
> happened? I spent a fair amount of time attempting to get you to
> discuss an interface (others: see the dbus list for December +
> January, there are several RFC passes of the patches), you went
> silent, then finally you followed up with:

Dude, that's a completely different issue. don't mix bus and socket activation.

>         https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34526#c1
> 
>         NAK. I plan to add a very different interface for bus
> activation in systemd
>         now, so please do not merge this before this new scheme isn't clear.
> 
> So after accusing me (again) of not being willing to discuss things
> with you, I once again tried to engage with you - you didn't bother -
> and then you NAK'd my attempts at working together because *you* were
> going to design (on your own) a very different interface for systemd
> *only*.

That's just two weeks ago, and I was on vacation.

Also, there's a big difference: for the socket activation API i pinged
you at a time where the code was still in flux, where we could have
agreed on something easily. Now with your D-Bus patches you are asking
me to change stuff I already released, it took you a year or so to come
back on this. Only naturally this will take longer time to
do. Definitely longer than two weeks.

You know, I can easily turn this around: the dbus hookup I prepped got
zero response from you. Now you prepped your own dbus hookup and you
already got waaaaaaay more response from me on it then I ever got from
you. Sure, it wasn't necessarily postive responses, but hey, what do you
expect if you play it like that?

I have now commented on that bug, just for you.

Also, I am not the dbus maintainer.

> And again, I even responded on that bug to see whether you still
> wanted to work together. And again, you have ignored it.

> > If the opinions on cooperation on APIs on Canonical's side changed since
> > then I am all ears. In fact I offered to come to UDS, if you guys want
> > me to, and maybe we can discuss that there.
> >
> You aren't interested in cooperation, Lennart. You are only interested
> in people doing things your way.
> 
> I am not going to do things your way, but I am still interested in us
> finding new ways to do things together, if you would like.

Wow, you are special.

Let me quote you:

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/11061470 at 1:05:14:

".. And why they backed off? Because there isn't really an advantage for
us to use the systemd's API and config format. It's already different
enough it wouldn't work the same. Compatibility is just merely a away
...  a different work for similarity and it would be surprisingly
similar."

While what you said there doesn't appear very coherent this message
appears clear to me: "I have no interest in sharing APIs with systemd".

Lennart

-- 
Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc.