[Portland] Transport mechanism

[nf2]

Dan Kegel wrote:
> On 3/2/06, Alex Graveley <alex at beatniksoftware.com> wrote:
>   
>> Lubos Lunak wrote:
>>     
>>> If nothing else, DBUS is still AFAIK considered unstable.
>>>       
>> I haven't been following this very closely, but really please consider
>> using D-BUS.
>>     
>
> Indeed.
> Lubos, can you point to the instability of D-BUS you were
> referring to?
>
> Before we go off way off defining our own protocol, let's try
> just using D-BUS.  It has its own marshalling and everything,
> even if it is (yuck!) xml inside.
> - Dan
>   
May i also comment on this?

1) Download dbus and look at dbus.h:

#ifndef DBUS_API_SUBJECT_TO_CHANGE
#error "Please define DBUS_API_SUBJECT_TO_CHANGE to acknowledge your 
understanding that D-BUS hasn't reached 1.0 and is subject to protocol 
and API churn. See the README for a full explanation."
#endif

2) Therefore dbus could only be used when standardizing on the public 
API of a "dapi" shared library instead of the IPC mechanism/protocol.

3) But then there is the problem that dbus has different 
language/toolkit/main loop bindings (for glib, Qt,..). Which makes it 
hard to have a single standardized C-API...

Norbert