first cut of hal service description file

Havoc Pennington hp at
Thu Mar 31 20:04:27 PST 2005

On Thu, 2005-03-31 at 20:13 -0500, David Zeuthen wrote:
> My point was really that desktop level applications consuming things
> like D-BUS API's are not likely to get this right anyway, like it or
> not. You can't expect desktop level software to reconnect to a service,
> if it goes down; it's just not going to happen. 
> Rather the fix is that the service shouldn't go down in the first place.
> This is sort of similar to the "never restart D-BUS daemon thread".
> Similarly, the only program that I know who can handle losing the X
> connection is XEmacs and I consider this feature crazy.

Replying to this bit separately, since I think it's another topic.

The difference between D-BUS and X is that you're using the IPC for lots
of different purposes. I think there are a fair number of those purposes
where handling errors makes sense. There are others where it doesn't.

But for example, to me if gnome-session or Metacity aborted on error
while talking to an app, that would be broken.

If an app exited in the absence of a session manager, though, then that
might be reasonable.


More information about the dbus mailing list