Re: Excellent technical overview of D-BUS

[Rogelio Serrano]

On 2004-09-01 14:54:02 +0800 Richard Frith-Macdonald 
<richard@brainstorm.co.uk> wrote:

> On 1 Sep 2004, at 06:59, Rogelio Serrano wrote:

> > I agree. I think it is better to extend gdomap so it becomes 
> > D-BUS daemon 
> > like .
>
> That's not what I meant.  I don't see any reason to extend 
> gdomap to be like 
> the
> d-bus daemon.  The two daemons do different jobs, and if we 
> want to use 
> something
> like d-bus, we should probably just use d-bus.

I see. I think the idea of D-BUS as a 'bus' is beginning to 
lose appeal for me.

[snip]
> While the organizational simplicity of that is appealing, I'm 
> not sure it's a 
> good idea.
>
> The gdomap server is just used to look up ports by service 
> name ... it's 
> needed in
> order to locate a service on the network, but plays no role in 
> the actual 
> messaging.

I see. What about starting services on demand? No more message 
bus. Just a service monitoring and lookup hub. But still split 
into local and network parts.

> Currently we have host-local DO via unix domain sockets 
> (NSMessagePort)
> except on windows, and this does not require/use gdomap ... 
> since we don't
> need to look up the  service on the network.  We know it's 
> local and can
> look it up via a local database of some sort (eg. the local 
> filesystem).
>
> > If you dont want network DO then dont run the network ipc 
> > part.
>
> Yes.

Now I need to start reading gdomap code.

--
Blood is thicker then water... And much tastier
                            John Davidorff Pell