Hi, On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 4:16 AM, James Rayner <iphitus@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 3:53 PM, Paulo Matias <matias@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 2:49 AM, James Rayner <iphitus@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> my support for [core], as an upcoming netcfg version will take >>> advantage of the wpa_supplicant dbus interface. >>> >> >> Please avoid using dbus in netcfg. I like it because it's clean, KISS, >> and uses only default/native stuff. I can help integrating with UNIX >> domain sockets or UDP sockets if needed. >> >> [1] http://hostap.epitest.fi/wpa_supplicant/devel/wpa__ctrl_8c-source.html > > It wasn't an immediate decision to use dbus and I did evaluate other > options such as the aforementioned sockets interface. > > dbus is just as "default/native" if not more "native" than a custom > control interface. These days, you'll struggle to find a system out > there which doesnt at least have dbus installed. I picked the dbus > setup as it's quicker for me to implement, easier to maintain in the > long term, more KISS and easily the future for linux wireless > configuration. > I agree the dbus interface is quicker to implement. This is why I offered help to implement the socket stuff if needed. Anyway, it would not take a lot of time, as the /dev/udp bash interface could be used. But if you think dbus is the future for Linux wireless configuration, and that wpa_supplicant would let another control interfaces unmaintained or even drop them, then it is really better to use dbus since now. > dbus should be available in 2.2 and default in 3.0. In 3.0 the old > interface will not be removed, instead renamed to "wireless-old" and > so available for those who dislike dbus for some odd reason. > Great. How will the new wireless interface be configured? DAEMONS=(dbus net-profiles) for those who want it being configured at boot up? > If you want to implement a sockets interface, go for it. netcfg is > designed to be modular, allowing a range of different interfaces > implemented in any programming language (more in 2.2). > Yes, I know. It's very a good job you had done in netcfg. It was very easy to implement a modified "wireless-ral" interface when I needed some "iwpriv" magic to use WPA in my ralink card, in the times I had to use rt73-cvs :) Thanks for the quick response and please don't understand me bad. I really appreciate your work, and I was only willing to help. If I was too boring, please forgive this purism and my fears. The first thing that had came to my mind when I read the "dbus in [core]" message was a lot of another services (like hal) being included after that, but no, this is not going to happen. Best regards, Paulo Matias
