User bus conclusion

[Havoc Pennington]

Hi,

On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Lennart Poettering <mzqohf at 0pointer.de> wrote:
>> Isn't the new user bus simply saying that the session bus has a fixed
>> address?
>
> This is definitely the main point. But there's more. For example the
> user bus is strictly defined to be non-networked. For the session bus
> this was still kinda left open.

I agree with Thiago; I think you're setting limits/rules around
sessions. (Sessions will not have apps from other machines as a
session member; users may only have one session per machine; some
details of how you want to start a session and discover it.)

Renaming to user bus obfuscates things. (The subject line of the email
for me didn't match what you guys propose in the body of the email.)

User bus is misleading. If you have network-wide user accounts, then
those users can have N buses, 1 per machine, not a single bus. The
buses typically would all share the same home directory.

Also, depending on how you address
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17970#c23 , you might
need the "user" bus to have multiple users on it. (At least root in
addition to original user.)

If you insist on a new name for the bus in the dbus APIs, please use
USER_ON_HOST or something, not just USER, for the enum value. But I
think just recycling SESSION is OK here. What you're doing is changing
how the OS will define a session. The bus still corresponds to a
session.

Havoc