Starting the kdbus discussions
alp at nuanti.com
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
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