User bus conclusion

[Lennart Poettering]

On Tue, 09.11.10 22:58, Havoc Pennington (hp at pobox.com) wrote:

> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Havoc Pennington <hp at pobox.com> wrote:
> > From an app perspective nothing is really changing here, so there
> > shouldn't be API/cognitive churn. The main change is that now people
> > don't have to do their own locking for hardware-accessing services as
> > long as they know a particular user has claimed the hardware?
> >
> 
> I think I basically don't even understand how the proposal is a dbus
> proposal; it's really an OS proposal. The bus daemon doesn't care how
> you configure remote access or number of permitted sessions per user
> per machine.

Well, you definitely should see this in the context of XDG_RUNTIME_DIR
and cgroups, and systemd. It's my definitive plan to come up with a
definition of a session (or supersession, or whatever you want to call
it), that transcends all layers of our stack. The bus of one of them,
and what Ryan and I proposed here is mostly about the bus part of the
stack.

Lennart

-- 
Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc.