hp at pobox.com
Fri Nov 13 16:18:40 PST 2009
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Colin Walters <walters at verbum.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Ray Strode <halfline at gmail.com> wrote:
>> The session bus serves a very useful purpose, it defines the scope of
>> the user's session. I think that was one of it's original design
>> intents (right Havoc?).
>> There are various bits of infrasture that hook themselves to the
>> lifecycle of the bus because they expect that the bus will only
>> survive for the duration of the user's session.
>> I don't think we can break that gaurantee.
> There is actually a fairly simple solution; add an API to
> org.freedesktop.DBus to explicitly opt-out of being disconnected on
> session end. Then if we make the "session bus" really "user-machine
> bus", things like pulseaudio could stay around if there's another
> session holding the usermachine bus open.
You still have the "su" problem though right, that we haven't
documented and defined how many buses / sessions / whatever per X
server. So if I have a graphical service on the bus, it would just
break (since currently it might assume 1 service instance per X
More information about the dbus