Starting the kdbus discussions

[Lennart Poettering]

On Thu, 02.01.14 21:00, Havoc Pennington (hp at pobox.com) wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Lennart Poettering <mzqohf at 0pointer.de>wrote:
> 
> > The flags are no "arbitrarily" inverted. We simply dropped the weird
> > inversion that dbus1 had there in the first place. Moreover, this is
> > not visible to the outside anyway, as applications should connect via a
> > library such as libsystemd-bus, or gdbus to the thing, and those library
> > trivially abstract the app developer away from this diffrence.
> >
> 
> I haven't read this whole thread or the spec (just saw it), but I think I
> remember the historical context on this one.
> 
> I believe the no-flags (flags=0) case is supposed to be sensible defaults
> and the flags are supposed to be the thing you'd opt into because you know
> what you are doing. There may even be discussion in the archives about
> flipping them for this reason, I don't know.

That would certainly make sense, howver doesn't appear to  be the
case. For example, when acquiring a name this would suggest that
queuing for a name would be the best default. However, I am quite sure
that most daemons probably want to know early if the name is already
taken, and I think most daemons hence currently don't pass a 0 flag when
acuiring their name...

Lennart

-- 
Lennart Poettering, Red Hat