[Portland] Current plan summarized

[nf2]

Bastian, Waldo wrote:
>> I'm still not convinced regarding the static linking of the interface
>> library. We have not discussed this thoroughly and perhaps it's too
>> early to decide. I think there are two options here:
>>
>> 1) Standardize protocol, socket locations, dapi-daemon
>>     
> startup-scripts...
>   
>> 2) Standardize the API of a dynamically linked dapi-client library (You
>> can still have convenience wrappers for C++,...), hiding all the IPC
>> complexity.
>>
>> At the moment i would prefer the second option.
>>     
>
> And you prefer it because ... ?
>
>
>   
... standardizing IPC means you have to make all those final decisions 
about:

-) How to start the daemon if it's not running? Running a startup-script?
-) When to start the daemon (at the beginning of a desktop session / on 
demand?)
-) How many daemon processes (single/one per application)?
-) Name/location of the socket? (careful! it might have to stay in the 
same place for the next 10 years)
-) Which protocol to use (homegrown, dbus-1.0, dbus-2.0,...)?
-) Perhaps clients have to read a config-file to look up the socket 
name. Where to find the config-file?


Regards,
Norbert