[rfc] The Big Picture

[David Zeuthen]

On Thu, 2006-10-26 at 21:28 -0400, Samuel Cormier-Iijima wrote:
> <sarcasm (or is it?)>
> To DBus people, every problem is a DBus problem.
> </sarcasm>

Seriously, I think most people are aware that D-Bus is not the right
solution to every problem on the planet. For example that's why HAL on
Linux is using a good old Unix domain socket to get events from udev.
I'm sure you can find other examples.

Also, I think Havoc described the purpose of D-Bus and the message bus
architecture pretty well... earlier today [1].

I'm not sure what you want to achieve saying what you just said
however.... did you have a real point or are you just trolling?

     David

ps. It's D-Bus.... not DBus, D-BUS, dbus or whatever. I'm also looking
at you Havoc :-)

[1] : Havoc wrote something like this

"In fact, the _primary_ purpose of dbus for the desktop in my mind isn't
IPC at all, but all the policy around it - activation, lifecycle
tracking, session scoping, security policy, and yes the machine id.
These things provide fixed context and semantics that otherwise don't
exist. IPC is easy; open a socket and dump stuff into it, there are a
thousand protocols and libs for this, dbus offers nothing new."