mzqohf at 0pointer.de
Fri Nov 13 16:20:44 PST 2009
On Sat, 14.11.09 00:10, Colin Walters (walters at verbum.org) wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Ray Strode <halfline at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The session bus serves a very useful purpose, it defines the scope of
> > the user's session. I think that was one of it's original design
> > intents (right Havoc?).
> > There are various bits of infrasture that hook themselves to the
> > lifecycle of the bus because they expect that the bus will only
> > survive for the duration of the user's session.
> > I don't think we can break that gaurantee.
> There is actually a fairly simple solution; add an API to
> org.freedesktop.DBus to explicitly opt-out of being disconnected on
> session end. Then if we make the "session bus" really "user-machine
> bus", things like pulseaudio could stay around if there's another
> session holding the usermachine bus open.
So instead of distuingishing between a session and a user+machine *bus*
you'd be distuingishing between session and user+machine *services*?
Not sure I am convinced... Seems to be the wrong solution to me,
i.e. introducing a service taxonomy where a bus taxonomy is more
appropriate and already exists?
Lennart Poettering Red Hat, Inc.
lennart [at] poettering [dot] net
http://0pointer.net/lennart/ GnuPG 0x1A015CC4
More information about the dbus