Being interested in NameOwnerChanged for a namespace, not one name

[Lennart Poettering]

On Mon, 20.09.10 08:35, Marcel Holtmann (marcel at holtmann.org) wrote:

> > I had a similar thought when I read Will's mail first. However, I then
> > came to the conclusion that prefix matching is what we want here,
> > because it's the one scheme that makes sense with the way dbus names are
> > build. 
> > 
> > Or to put it in other words: i believe allowing more flexible matching
> > here might get people to name their services "foo.$something.bar"
> > instead of "foo.bar.$something", which I believe we should avoid and
> > hence not encourage by more flexible name matching.
> 
> I think we should discourage this waiting for a bus name with a specific
> prefix at all. Using active registration with the server is what should
> be done. I think Telepathy needs to be fixed here and not D-Bus.

Why?

I believe this kind of loose coupling is a good thing, not a bad
thing. 

In particular, looking at the "MediaServerSpec" (which allows session
agents to make available additional media resources that are then
exposed via media servers such as upnp/av), this is really the only
reasonable thing to do, because there might be multiple providers AND
multiple consumers of these services, and by doing this prefix matching
the coupling between them is easy and simple, and requires no
involvement of any additional "registrar" services or suchlike.

I think Telepathy is doing the right thing here, and people should
follow its scheme in similar cases.

Lennart

-- 
Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc.