Managed D-Bus 0.3

[Havoc Pennington]

Hi,

Alp Toker wrote:
> Havoc Pennington wrote:
>> Alp Toker wrote:
>>> If the spec were maintained in its own repository like every other 
>>> spec on freedesktop.org, it would be much easier for other D-Bus 
>>> implementations to contribute to it,
>>
>> How is that? You are just talking about saving some disk space in your 
>> checkout of the spec?
> 
> I don't see what disk space has to do with anything. I would prefer to 
> contribute to a spec that is maintained outside of the competing 
> implementation's repository in the same way that I deal with other 
> freedesktop.org specifications, but if that isn't the way you want to do 
> things, I can live with that.

You said "it would be much easier" - I am just asking what you mean.

I don't know why you say "competing implementation" btw - I don't see 
what the competition is. There is certainly no prize that I'm aware of ;-)

>>> as well as giving them some reassurance that they won't be relegated 
>>> to second class when it comes to working on protocol enhancements.
>>
>> Realistically, other implementations *are* a little bit second class, 
>> at least right now. The spec is pretty incomplete and the reference 
>> implementation is thus required as a way to know what the behavior is 
>> intended to be. Also, we are unlikely to change the spec in ways that 
>> break the reference implementation's ABI guarantees.
> 
> I can't really tell my users that they are using a "second class" 
> implementation. You are welcome to hold that opinion.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with using managed D-Bus, just 
stating some basic facts that 1) the spec is pretty incomplete so the 
reference implementation defines much of the protocol and 2) we are 
unable to change the spec in ways that break the reference 
implementation ABI.

These are perfectly factual statements... I'm not trying to put down 
managed dbus, quite the opposite, I'm glad you are working on it.

You did (at least I thought) implicitly ask to hear about anything that 
made the reference implementation "special" so I summarized the ones I 
could think of.

If you didn't want that info, I apologize.

> I am doing a a clean room implementation to provide validation for your 
> design and specification, not because I think your code is tainted. 
> Maybe you missed this point.

I guess so. I'm a little bit unsure you should put yourself through too 
much pain over this, because the specification is pretty clearly 
incomplete and informal, it doesn't necessarily require a lot of effort 
to demonstrate that it is ;-)

But I do appreciate the intent, and any improvements you can contribute 
are welcome.

Havoc