[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Excellent technical overview of D-BUS
From: |
Alex Perez |
Subject: |
Excellent technical overview of D-BUS |
Date: |
Tue, 31 Aug 2004 13:46:28 -0700 (PDT) |
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004, Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote:
>
> 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.
Some do, just not most. We have lots of idlers who just poke in when they
have a few moments and are merely lurking most of the time.
>
> > 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.
If, as Rogelio suggested (or was it you, I can't remember) libdbus might
be sufficient for this..what do you think about that?
> 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.
Well, I did state that it's what I *thought* you would think, and it's
certainly worth pointing out that while you took issue with what I said I
thought you would think (convoluted, eh?) you did not refute the claims
themselves...
> There are a few other concerns...
>
> 1. There is no implementation for ms-windows. We really should have
> this working on all the systems GNUstep runs on before we make it the
> default. I don't use windows myself, so I'm biased towards saying this
> is not a show-stopper (ie we could make default behavior differ between
> windows and unix), but I don't know what popular opinion would be.
> 2. The change will break existing code, so we need to go through at
> least one release cycle where we deprecate the old behavior very
> clearly. I've finally got round to adding a macro to NSDebug.h to
> issue once-per-process warning messages when deprecated
> functions/methods are executed ... something like that should be used
> to make sure that developers switch over to using methods to explicitly
> request inter-host distributed objects.
As far as I know, the long term goal is to have D-BUS working everywhere.
Presumably also under Microsoft Windows. I could look into whether or not
it seems to want to compile under mingw. I will try to do that today, just
for my own reference.
> I said we should make the local DO the default if the system is running
> in MacOS-X compatibility mode (GSMacOSXCompatible user default) ...
> since apps designed for MacOS-X should be expecting that behavior
> anyway. That change is now in place, but of course it doesn't work under
> ms-windows.
Why "of course"?
> I now think, at the time of these discussions we should have put out a
> call for developers to do a windows implementation. I was kind of
> expecting Alexander to do the coding as he was pushing for the changes,
> but I now think I was mistaken/unreasonable to expect that (after all,
> I hate windows coding, so why should I expect anyone else who doesn't
> use windows to do it).
Shoulda' Woulda' Coulda'... :) What's done is done. I don't blame others
for not having any desire to program under Windows, but there are those
who want their stuff to be portable.
> So, if anyone would care to develop a windows version of NSMessagePort
> and NSMessagePortNameServer I'd be grateful. It may be possible to use
> a modified version of the NSSocketPort code (using only 127.0.0.1 as
> the host and using the filesystem to hold service name information),
> but I think it would probably be a *lot* better to use some sort of
> windows native messaging mechanism if possible. Such code would be
> substantial enough to require copyright assignment to the FSF,
> so any volunteer should already have done that, or should please get
> that process going as soon as possible.
What parts of it are non-portable as it stands now?
- Re: D-BUS versus GDOMAP (WINDOWS users please note), (continued)
- Re: D-BUS versus GDOMAP (WINDOWS users please note), Richard Frith-Macdonald, 2004/08/31
- Re: D-BUS versus GDOMAP (WINDOWS users please note), Rogelio Serrano, 2004/08/31
- Re: D-BUS versus GDOMAP (WINDOWS users please note), Alex Perez, 2004/08/31
- Re: D-BUS versus GDOMAP (WINDOWS users please note), Pete French, 2004/08/31
- Re: D-BUS versus GDOMAP (WINDOWS users please note), Alex Perez, 2004/08/31
- Re: D-BUS versus GDOMAP (WINDOWS users please note), Pete French, 2004/08/31
- Re: D-BUS versus GDOMAP (WINDOWS users please note), Rogelio Serrano, 2004/08/31
- Re: D-BUS versus GDOMAP (WINDOWS users please note), Alex Perez, 2004/08/31
- Re: D-BUS versus GDOMAP (WINDOWS users please note), Rogelio Serrano, 2004/08/31
- Re: D-BUS versus GDOMAP (WINDOWS users please note), Alex Perez, 2004/08/31
- Excellent technical overview of D-BUS,
Alex Perez <=
Message not available
- Re: D-BUS versus GDOMAP (Was: D-BUS equivalent), MJ Ray, 2004/08/29
- Re: D-BUS versus GDOMAP (Was: D-BUS equivalent), Alex Perez, 2004/08/29
- Re: D-BUS versus GDOMAP (Was: D-BUS equivalent), Banlu Kemiyatorn, 2004/08/29
- Message not available
- Re: D-BUS versus GDOMAP (Was: D-BUS equivalent), MJ Ray, 2004/08/29
- Re: D-BUS versus GDOMAP (Was: D-BUS equivalent), Jason Clouse, 2004/08/29