Joerg.Barfurth at Sun.COM
Wed Nov 11 07:24:30 PST 2009
Colin Walters schrieb:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Lennart Poettering <mzqohf at 0pointer.de> wrote:
>> Yes, I think so. I am quite confident that things like multiple SSH or
>> other kinds of remote logins will continue to exist for a long, long
>> time. I.e. there will be graphical logins and some "reduced
>> functionality" logins, such as SSH, and they will live side by
> So what's the reason we want those to have separate bus instances? I
> certainly want, when I have a login session running, then ssh into the
> computer, to access the existing session data. Or if my backup job
> kicks off, it'd sure be nice to pick up the gnome-keyring from my
> running desktop.
> On the other hand, the only use case for having them actually be
> separate that I can think of offhand is "poor man's virt" like xnest
> testing. And for the testing case, it's trivial to explicitly spawn a
> separate bus when you want it.
I don't think you should exclude the case of two graphical sessions.
There are real desktop virt (thin client) systems (e.g. our Sun Ray)
that have the sessions on the server. It is quite easy to obtain more
than one graphical session that way.
Existing problems with that are not substantially different from those
you get when running two sessions on different hosts that use a common
networked home directory. And depend on the desktop environment you are
>> Also, I'd like to draw the distinction between session and user buses
>> also in terms of network. I.e. i still believe we should try to make
>> the session bus shared across the network, while the user bus is
If the optimal scope for a session bus is everything accessing the same
X server, would the optimal scope for a user bus be everything accessing
the same home directory - even if that is shared or replicated over the
Maybe I don't really understand the use case yet. As for things
mentioned in this thread:
- keyring: I probably want to share my keyring as widely as my home
directory. But I don't want to share an unlocked key access handle to my
keyring beyond my current session.
- PulseAudio: I don't see anything audio-specific that I want to have
user-scope. Audio sources and sinks are generally associated with
sessions, not users.
One thing where a user bus would really make sense is user preferences
(i.e. dconf). But there again home directory scope is a better fit than
user-at-host scope. For configuration both system and clients would need
to properly distinguish sharable, local and transient settings - but
currently we don't. That is one reason why the attempt to do networked
gconf didn't work out too well.
Joerg Barfurth phone: +49 40 23646662 / x66662
Software Engineer mailto:joerg.barfurth at sun.com
Desktop Technology http://reserv.ireland/twiki/bin/view/Argus/
Thin Client Software http://www.sun.com/software/sunray/
Sun Microsystems GmbH http://www.sun.com/software/javadesktopsystem/
More information about the dbus