dbus - comments requested, here's one
quintesse at palacio-cristal.com
Tue Jun 29 06:53:51 PDT 2004
Havoc Pennington wrote:
>On Tue, 2004-06-29 at 07:59, Tako Schotanus wrote:
>>What do you think Havoc? Would it be worthwhile to take him up on his
>>_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
>>Or have you already made up your mind that this is not a viable
>>Sorry if I sound pushy, just curious :-)
>I don't see how this would work to solve the set of problems dbus is
>trying to solve, and fit within the set of constraints that dbus has.
>But of course I'm open to being proven wrong.
Ok, so in theory it could be done because both systems at a low level
pass RPC-like messages back and forth.
So _if_ it could be done we would win a fully functional, tested, proven
But like you said we would need to know if this stuff meets the
requirements of DBus.
Is there something you could tell about these requirements? Some things
that in your opinion set DBus apart from ther rest and that are needed
to reach the goals that are set for this project? (or is there a
document already that puts down these requirements?)
Is there, also in your opinion, that stand in the way? (something that
you might have already know about the freedce project that would make it
difficult to use it in the DBus project for example)
And finally, what "proof" would Luke have to show to make it interesting
anough to take a closer look? (He has offered to do some of the work
necessary to include freedce in DBus, so with some guidelines we could
maybe assure that nobody will be wasting his time)
Again, I'm not tryin to push things, part of it is curiosity and part
the idea that it would be a waste not to use something that already
exists and has proven itself. But if it can't be done, it can't be done.
Period. The same if it can be done but nobody is willing to do it. But
we have somebody here who has offered to make at least some effort to
try and convince us so what not use that opportunity? :-)
BTW, the reason I myself think we should take a look at this technology
is because if the new ideas with respect to marshalling. It just seems a
very complex subject that has many hidden problems that we probably
haven not yet even thought about. If DBus would stay the way it was now
message protocol where hardly anything is known about the kind of data
being send back and forth I would probably not even think about it, it's
simple enough. But with the marshalling and all the language bindings to
go with that it does become a totally different ballgame, doesn't it?
But maybe I'm overestimating the complexity of it all?
Thanks for reading my ramblings :-)
PS: Sorry for the use of "we" and "us", I know I don't deserve to
include myself in that group. :-)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the dbus