How about employing <anything> (now: TLS, later?)

Earnie earnie at
Mon Jul 16 14:15:51 UTC 2018

On 7/16/2018 12:50 AM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Sunday, 15 July 2018 15:30:53 PDT L A Walsh wrote:
>>> No, but a car and a train are quite different from one another.
>> Certainly, but if the car could only go between train stations, and the
>> train wouldn't carry anything larger than the car could...
> Well, the point is that they don't, so car and train are quite different. D-
> Bus and AllJoyn may be quite different after the fork due to different 
> objectives.
>> I.e. What types of things were different from what you wanted -- NOT
>> from what
>> they added on top of what you wanted.  I.e. you mention TLS and
>> inter-computer
>> authentication...if those functions were compiled out, how would their
>> product
>> differ from yours -- would they most be things that could be turned off
>> because you didn't need them?  Or another way to phrase it -- is there
>> stuff mostly
>> a superset of what you needed (or vice-versa).  If one was a strict
>> superset/subset of the other, obviously that makes things easiest.
> I don't know, and this is after a couple of years interacting with AllJoyn 
> people. They never approached us (D-Bus community) and talked about those 
> things, so we never got a good analysis and discussion on how to keep 
> compatibility, much less keep a single code base.

I've been following this conversation with much interest and find the
search for alljoyn on Google is an interesting read.  They are big
promoters of IoT so if my car's mechanic plugs his machine into my car's
port it is likely to be using the Alljoyn API as well as the train's
mechanic's equipment.  Windows until recently was also supporting the
Alljoyn API.

(IoT) Internet of Things - simplifying inter-connectivity of devices

P.S. IBM has an entire development department focused on IoT.

More information about the dbus mailing list