dbus - comments requested, here's one

[Tako Schotanus]

Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:

>On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 10:13:08AM -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
>  
>
>>And I don't believe this claim is true. The reason there are tons of IPC
>>systems out there is that there are different tradeoffs to be made.
>>    
>>
>
> and i believe that dce/rpc is, for the description that your project
> gives ("fast", "message-based" etc) an existing system that is
> already proven, already does what you are attempting to reinvent.
> 
> ... why waste it?
>
>
> i'm quite happy to write a plugin authentication module for you,
> to do SASL, if that helps [as i mentioned in my initial post,
> all encryption systems have been stripped out of dce 1.1 aka
> freedce but the hooks have been left in]
>
> if you like i can come up with some digital signing and/or encryption
> scheme that SASL can use.
>
> i'm also happy to write you a unix-domain-socket transport layer
> plugin, too [again, as i mentioned in my initial post, there is
> evidence of companies like DEC adding their own transport layers
> in e.g. DECNet 3.0 so it's pretty easy to add new transports].
>
> that'd at least get you started.
>
>  
>
What do you think Havoc? Would it be worthwhile to take him up on his offer?
_If_ he's right and this could be used by DBus it could possibly safe 
you a lot of time implementing the proposed marshalling communication layer.
Or have you already made up your mind that this is not a viable option?

Sorry if I sound pushy, just curious :-)

Cheers,
 -Tako

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://freedesktop.org/pipermail/dbus/attachments/20040629/9563a2bf/attachment.html