User bus conclusion

[Havoc Pennington]

Hi,

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Lennart Poettering <mzqohf at 0pointer.de> wrote:
> Well, I think we definitely want to inform the apps that they are
> actually on a user bus. That's why I think Ryan's request to name this
> bus differently if we share it between logins makes sense -- even if we
> actually redirect all apps to the user bus if they ask for the session
> bus.
>

Just rephrase it. "to inform apps that sessions are per-user and not per-login."

What you're calling user bus is _not_ what it's ever been in the past
on this list, and it's just not a good name. What you're proposing to
change is the model for _sessions_.

It's a stronger, more useful guarantee for apps if you change
_sessions_ to be singleton. In fact, I continue to think what we've
always called user bus - a bus spanning sessions - is a bad idea. I
think what you guys have really hit on is that the right fix is not to
have a user bus, but to have a user session. The whole problem with a
user bus was that it had multiple sessions on it. You've fixed that by
uniquifying the session, instead of the bus. The bus just gets
uniquified as a side effect.

Havoc