On 29 Aug 2004, at 19:49, Alex Perez wrote:
Rogelio Serrano wrote:
is DO similar to d-bus? Or can we implement something like
dbus using DO?
D-bus is basically "DO Done Right" (with a proper
authentication mechanism
and significantly more focus on security. I've suggested a
few times in
#GNUstep (and maybe here on the list as well, check the
archives)
not that I can see ... I don't think most developers use IRC.
that we replace gdomap with it, since it's a lot more secure,
more
generally accepted as "canonical", has a much larger
userbase, is a
Freedesktop.org spec/app, meaning that Those Other
Desktops(tm) will
eventually use it (and quite possibly Xorg itself at a future
date (after
6.8 is released, for sure)
This is the first time I've looked at it, but I've gone
through the tutorials
and a bit of the source code and it does not look as though
there would be an
easy way to use it to replace gdomap ... it would instead
replace the entire
transport layer.
So 'D-BUS versus GDOMAP' is misleading since they are not
really doing the
same sort of job.
While gdomap is used once per connection, to lookup the port
and then the
client connects directly to the server, with dbus the client
connects to the
bus and then passes all messages to the bus, which forwards
them to the
server. I think it would be possible (and desirable for
GNUstep) to work out
a way to use the bus solely as a name server and connect peer
to peer, but
that's not the way its designed.
As far as I can tell, d-bus is not finished yet and is
certainly not portable
yet (I'm not sure it's ever intended to work under
ms-windows). So if anyone
wants to rewrite the distributed objects system to use d-bus,
they would most
likely need to contribute quite a bit of work to d-bus too.
In any event, with alexm's default set, you do not need
gdomap running for
local-host DO (you only need it for inter-host DO) Personally
I think that
should be the default, but I'm relatively convinced that
Richard
Frith-McDonald would disagree with me on that point.
To the best of my knowledge, you have always been
wrong/misleading when
stating what my opinions would be! I would be happier if you
didn't do it.
If anyone agrees that gdomap should be disabled by default
(keeping in mind
that functionality is not lost for intra-host DO, and only
for inter-host
DO) please voice your opinion on the matter here. IMHO,
gdomap shouldn't be
required to simply run a GNUstep app, since this creates
problems with
setup of the environment that cause potential converts to
scurry into the
underbrush before we can feed them the Kool-Aid.
Richard, I'd also appreciate it greatly if you'd give us your
opinion on
the matter. As far as I understand it, with alexm's default
set right now,
inter-host DO is still possible but you have to explicitly
say you want it.
I would prefer to have host-local DO with filesystem based
service name
lookup the default, but there are still a few problems with
it. I had a
long, confused discussion about it with Alexander many months
ago, in which
the final position as I understood it was that we would
progress when he had
time to do some coding. At the time I was a bit concerned
about how
tested/reliable the new code was (that's no longer an issue).
There are a
few other concerns...