On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Denis A. Altoé Falqueto <denisfalqueto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, fellow archers. > > I've created a new email with a new subject, so that who wants to > ignore this completely, can do it easily. > > The recent past discussions about DBus got me thinking about an > unanswered question: what is technically wrong with DBus? After some > time researching about that, I can't find that answer by myself. > > DBus is just a way to make applications communicate. It can be used in > several languages, namely C, C++, Java, Perl, Python, Ruby, and many > more. There are tools for it in bash, although there's some > limitations with that, but is very easy to do something fast in python > or perl or ruby or... > > It (DBus) has some interesting mechanisms to activate daemons just > when needed. I find this feature very interesting, so that you only > spend the resources when you really need. > > One restriction is that it is not network enabled, so it only works > locally. But in the home page, there is a invitation to improve that > situation (http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/DBusRemote). > > Anyway, I would like to read what others have to say about DBus, but > please give techinical reasons. I don't want to know who likes and who > dislikes DBus. And I don't have anything against who dislikes DBus. > Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Mechanisms have existed for like 20 years before dbus to communicate with other programs. dbus is just another way to do it that has a smell of "architecture astronomy" - as if they all scoffed at the actual ways to do IPC on various Unicies and said "Oh, I can design better". That's why I dislike it.
