Starting the kdbus discussions

[Alberto Mardegan]

On 12/27/2013 02:04 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
[...]
> This makes us comfortable to start discussion on the dbus ML regarding
> the details and what this means for the dbus spec. I have put together a
> document now that explains what we are doing and how to port a dbus1
> library over to a kdbus backend. Much of this hopefully should end up in
> the dbus spec one day.

First of all, big thanks to you and all the folks working on this. I
like the way it's designed and especially that the kernel module is
agnostic of many D-Bus details and could used to implement other IPCs
(incidentally, I wonder if the kernel module should be renamed to
something else than "kdbus").

I have only one major concern, which is about the activation of the
kdbus services. From what I understood while reading this thread,
activatable services should ship a systemd unit file (or two?). Would it
be possible to make this feature independent of systemd?
That is, ship a .service file (similar to the old D-Bus service files)
in some place such as /usr/share/kdbus/services/, and any
systemd-specific data elsewhere (or even in the same file, but maybe
with a "X-systemd-" prefix)?

I guess that nothing prevents an alternative implementation to just go
and ready the systemd unit files, but it would just feel nicer if
everything related to this new development used the "kdbus" namespace.

(Which might also help people answer the question: "is it kdbus or
systemd?". So, I'd suggest always using the name "kdbus" for the client
APIs and documentation, and keep the fact that it's implemented in
systemd as an internal detail)

Ciao,
  Alberto