[rfc] The Big Picture

[uwesmail2005-lkml at yahoo.de]

--- "John (J5) Palmieri" <johnp at redhat.com> schrieb:

> On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 14:36 +0100, uwesmail2005-lkml at yahoo.de wrote:
> > --- "John (J5) Palmieri" <johnp at redhat.com> schrieb:
> > 
> > > On Fri, 2006-10-27 at 11:14 -0400, David Zeuthen wrote:
> > > > Hi,
...
> > > > In my opinion I'm not sure it's a good thing right now to make
> > > D-Bus
> > > > depend on Upstart with the current concerns that a number of
> > > > distributions (including at least Fedora) now have wrt. what
> > > Upstart
> > > > really is cf. my previous mail. There's also some problems if
> > > Upstart
> > > > starts depending on D-Bus but that's probably solvable.
> > > 
> > > D-Bus will never depend on an outside tool period.  It is
> designed to
> > > run as a generic desktop bus on many platforms, not just Linux.
> > > 
> > Then upstart should be part of D-Bus, but as separate process. Or
> > we call it "privilege separation" and develop from the separate
> > privilege process the same that upstart is. We will get to the same
> > goal eitherway, but later if we try to NIH.
> 
> You are going about the issue all wrong.  D-Bus is a simple message
Don't think so.
> bus
> that can activate processes when messages are sent to them if they
D-Bus is a simple message bus. Period. When messages are sent to
processes, that aren't active, messages are sent about this to a
process that is active and can do somethig about this.
Or so it should read.
D-Bus should send messages, nothing else.
> are
> not already running.  It isn't going to do some dependency tree
> thing.
The dependency thing should fall of from activation and pid-deposit
(as outlined in the OP) automagically.
There should neither upstart nor D-Bus have to do anything about.
> This is like saying D-Bus should depend on HAL or HAL should be part
> of
> D-Bus.  HAL works perfectly well without being part of D-Bus.  I
> think
D-Bus doesn't has to depend on upstart. It should depend on "a running
process that has the means to activate processes" or activation won't
work. upstart would be the reference implementation. Any session
manager
could do the same (if it knows D-Bus of course).
But if such a process can't be external (I do not want to interfere in
political decrees) then it follows logically that it must be part of
D-Bus (the distribution).
> you are getting your layers confused.
> 
I think here has someone else gotten the layers wrong. Someone decided
already that it must be part of D-Bus(the program).
> -- 
> John (J5) Palmieri <johnp at redhat.com>
> 
> 





	
		
___________________________________________________________ 
Der frühe Vogel fängt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail: http://mail.yahoo.de