Starting the kdbus discussions

Alp Toker alp at
Sun Dec 29 23:00:36 PST 2013

On 30/12/2013 03:55, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> I am certainly not going to wdiff this against the bus spec for
> you...

OK. You were the one who asked for a discussion and review...

I don't think it's reasonable to expect those qualified to work through 
this with you to rut through commits on your git repository. They 
probably have other things to do.

The vendor politics is a matter for you and Ted -- as a discussion it's 
going nowhere fast, can you carry that off-list?

On a technical level the documents I've examined are a good refresh. The 
framing cleanups are just common sense tweaks that should actually make 
it easier to write interoperable systems.

I think what you have is a good approach, providing a compatibility 
layer rather than trying to bring along dbus1 with small incremental 

Activation in the reference daemon was always somewhat crummy and I 
don't see it as objectionable to move it away from the core while 
explore a more usable alternative in systemd. Other distributors can do 
their own thing here without throwing out the whole system if they have 
strong feelings on that, right?

Have you thought about how you'll align this with the reference 
implementation and specification on FDO?

You mentioned splitting out the serialization format. Are you 
considering describing the wire protocol as a strict subset of of the 
serialization format going forward, or do you want to give the current 
spec a break and make a fresh start based on your current work?


the browser experts

More information about the dbus mailing list