Being interested in NameOwnerChanged for a namespace, not one name
marcel at holtmann.org
Sun Sep 19 18:18:32 PDT 2010
> > > I had a similar thought when I read Will's mail first. However, I then
> > > came to the conclusion that prefix matching is what we want here,
> > > because it's the one scheme that makes sense with the way dbus names are
> > > build.
> > >
> > > Or to put it in other words: i believe allowing more flexible matching
> > > here might get people to name their services "foo.$something.bar"
> > > instead of "foo.bar.$something", which I believe we should avoid and
> > > hence not encourage by more flexible name matching.
> > I think we should discourage this waiting for a bus name with a specific
> > prefix at all. Using active registration with the server is what should
> > be done. I think Telepathy needs to be fixed here and not D-Bus.
> I believe this kind of loose coupling is a good thing, not a bad
> In particular, looking at the "MediaServerSpec" (which allows session
> agents to make available additional media resources that are then
> exposed via media servers such as upnp/av), this is really the only
> reasonable thing to do, because there might be multiple providers AND
> multiple consumers of these services, and by doing this prefix matching
> the coupling between them is easy and simple, and requires no
> involvement of any additional "registrar" services or suchlike.
> I think Telepathy is doing the right thing here, and people should
> follow its scheme in similar cases.
while I can follow your argumentation for the media server specification
to a certain degree, I still don't agree with it.
However this is not true for Telepathy. They have the central registrar
service which is called Mission Control. And that is required to always
be running. So the active registration would make sense here.
More information about the dbus