d-bus vs other interprocess communication system

[Thiago Macieira]

Noah Kantrowitz wrote:
>> D-Bus was not designed for high-throughput low-latency transfers. For
>> instance, I would not recommend using D-Bus to transfer window pixmaps
>> to a frame buffer server (30 fps @ 640x480 = 8.8 MB/s). For that, a
>> shared memory is probably better, or transferring directly to VRAM.
>> Actually, even for a data download, where the latency isn't of issue,
>> I wouldn't recommend D-Bus, but a dedicated channel.
>>
>> D-Bus is good for short, structured messages, point to point or point
>> to multipoint.
>
>But it can be handy to use DBus to do autodiscovery and negotiation for
>those other channels.

Indeed.

Think of an FTP connection: there's a control channel and there's a 
high-speed data channel. D-Bus is suited for that control channel.

-- 
  Thiago Macieira  -  thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org
    PGP/GPG: 0x6EF45358; fingerprint:
    E067 918B B660 DBD1 105C  966C 33F5 F005 6EF4 5358
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dbus/attachments/20080606/cca14511/attachment.pgp