Starting the kdbus discussions

[Havoc Pennington]

On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Lennart Poettering <mzqohf at 0pointer.de>wrote:

> > 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...
>
>
Yes, some of the flags may have wrong defaults. You now have the advantage
of actual data on dbus usage (which was not the case when picking these
flags).

Queuing is intended for a service name which might be provided by multiple
things, where the things might watch for whether they now own the name but
aren't going to exit if they don't own it.

You're probably right that isn't the common case.

It probably makes sense to fix the defaults but I just wanted to point out
that there was supposed to be a rationale for the "direction" of these
flags.

Havoc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dbus/attachments/20140104/fb651b03/attachment-0001.html>