User bus conclusion

[Ryan Lortie]

On Wed, 2010-11-10 at 13:09 +0000, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Wed Nov 10 08:04, David Zeuthen wrote:
> > The main point, I think, is that the newly proposed USER bus and the
> > existing SESSION bus are two different things. Sure, adding a new bus
> > type adds complexity but the world _is_ that complex.. e.g. GVfs and
> > org.fd.Notifications are two very different users of D-Bus.. the
> > former _really_ wants the (user, machine) thing and the latter really
> > wants to be run _per_ login session (including ssh(1) logins)... I
> > don't see the point in hiding this complexity. Instead, we should
> > embrace it and explain people, by example, how and when to use the
> > various bus types.
> 
> +1

I'm not against this in terms of it being the most conceptually clean
solution, sure.

I'm just not crazy about the idea of having 3 dbus-daemon instances.
And I get unhappy when I think that every application in the system will
eventually end up with connections to all 3 of them (through use of one
library or another).

If we permit the possibility for USER and SESSION to be the same bus in
configurations that are not concerned with multiple simultaneous
graphical sessions then we at least prune the problem back to its
current level.

Cheers