dbus - comments requested, here's one
quintesse at palacio-cristal.com
Tue Jun 29 04:59:30 PDT 2004
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 10:13:08AM -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
>>And I don't believe this claim is true. The reason there are tons of IPC
>>systems out there is that there are different tradeoffs to be made.
> and i believe that dce/rpc is, for the description that your project
> gives ("fast", "message-based" etc) an existing system that is
> already proven, already does what you are attempting to reinvent.
> ... why waste it?
> i'm quite happy to write a plugin authentication module for you,
> to do SASL, if that helps [as i mentioned in my initial post,
> all encryption systems have been stripped out of dce 1.1 aka
> freedce but the hooks have been left in]
> if you like i can come up with some digital signing and/or encryption
> scheme that SASL can use.
> i'm also happy to write you a unix-domain-socket transport layer
> plugin, too [again, as i mentioned in my initial post, there is
> evidence of companies like DEC adding their own transport layers
> in e.g. DECNet 3.0 so it's pretty easy to add new transports].
> that'd at least get you started.
What do you think Havoc? Would it be worthwhile to take him up on his offer?
_If_ he's right and this could be used by DBus it could possibly safe
you a lot of time implementing the proposed marshalling communication layer.
Or have you already made up your mind that this is not a viable option?
Sorry if I sound pushy, just curious :-)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the dbus