Daemon or no daemon

[Sean Middleditch]

On Mon, 2005-04-18 at 18:49 +0200, Magnus Bergman wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 10:40:06 -0400
> Sean Middleditch <elanthis at awesomeplay.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 2005-04-18 at 16:52 +0200, Magnus Bergman wrote:
> > > Some back-ends doesn't need the daemon, or can not benefit from it.
> In
> > 
> > This proposal is identical to my original D-VFS proposal, which was
> shot
> > down for several good technical reasons.  There is no backend that can
> > fulfill the D-VFS behavior requirements without a daemon.  Please read
> > the wiki and list archives for more details; I'm not going to repeat
> old
> > discussions anymore.
> 
> Yes, I did read the wiki and I read it again more carefully. And I
> understand and agree with almost all of it. But there is one detail I
> don't understand: "The complexity in making backends support both
> in-process and daemon operation would severely complicate the
> development of a backend." Why should that be so complicated? If it

Because backends in the daemon will be dependent on being in their own
threads, with a management thread, and threads per connecting
application, and probably even some more threads, all because of the
wonderfully stupid synchronous APIs we have to build on top of.
Actually putting those in the client will require the entire daemon, for
the most part, to be reimplemented in the client library to manage all
that gook, all for next to no actual real benefit.

-- 
Sean Middleditch <elanthis at awesomeplay.com>