[announce] dbus4win

[Havoc Pennington]

Hi,

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Marc Mutz <marc at kdab.net> wrote:
> Seeing as you quoted point #3 in this reply, though, I guess this is about
> the "unix transport", not public API (though transports could be considered
> part of it, of course).
>
> I can't see from your mails whether you are objecting to the use of plain
> files to "emulate" Unix domain sockets, or to using the "unix:" transport URL
> for that?

Right, I wasn't sure exactly what you meant here, but for example I
would not have the unix: transport address mean some other text file
thingy on Windows; I'd just call the transport something else that
describes it, and have it be its own transport (sharing any common
code, as makes sense). And document in the spec what this other
transport is.

Also, if the text file thing isn't that nice on windows, feel free to
do something else. For example you could use a COM moniker, if that's
easier or better on Windows (just making stuff up, I don't know what
is better).

I don't think there's any advantage to re-using the unix: transport
address; the only place that's hardcoded is in the .conf file, which
is already run through configure so can easily be different on Windows
- it is different depending on whether the unix platform has abstract
sockets iirc, and there were patches to make it use launchd on OS X.
(which reminds me - you should check out the launchd/OSX bug in
bugzilla, I think it probably adds some abstraction you would also
find useful.)

Havoc