[PATCH 0/5] Support service activation through Upstart

Scott James Remnant scott at netsplit.com
Thu Dec 23 17:16:38 PST 2010

On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Lennart Poettering <mzqohf at 0pointer.de> wrote:
> On Thu, 23.12.10 14:54, Scott James Remnant (scott at netsplit.com) wrote:
>> Lennart, would you be happy to move the activation protocol definition
>> into the D-Bus Spec and implement that in systemd as well?
> Scotty, no I don't think we should do that. The D-Bus spec exists to
> allow reimplementation of compatible clients or servers for the D-Bus
> proocol and for that describes the interaction between clients and
> servers. However, the activation stuff is an interface between one
> particular implementation of the server, and one or two particular
> implementations of init systems. I think it would be smart to leave this
> a private protocol between three parties instead of declaring it
> something super-official that is useable for everybody else too which
> would greatly complicate changing it. And that is actually something
> very much in your own interest I believe.
Do you think that this is a protocol the two of us could document and
share?  In which case where would you think would be the best "home"
for that protocol?  I'd assumed org.freedesktop.DBus made the most
sense.  This would seem to encourage additional implementations, which
you seem to be against?

Alternatively since we do activation slightly differently (systemd by
service name, upstart by dbus name), and discouraging additional
implementations of init systems is considered a win, would it be so
bad if we just had slightly different protocols here?

(In my most recent redraft of the patch, after taking into account
suggestions herein, the message construction is the only difference)


More information about the dbus mailing list