On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 7:42 PM, Denis A. Altoé Falqueto
<denisfalqueto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Felipe Tanus <fotanus@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Aaron didn't give any tech reason in his answear, and i don't
>> think someone will do, except the one you already said at your first
>> e-mail(no network). People who don't like DBus find it just
>> unecessary. I like DBus because I belive it unify the IPC in a way
>> others methods can't. It's more a question of taste than tech.
>
> That's what I fell too, though is a little early to jump to conclusions.
>
> The funny thing is that even who is not using a desktop can take
> advantage of a global bus for communication. And if it is standardized
> (even if a de facto standard), is good for everyone.
>
> It is sad, isn't it?
>
> --
> A: Because it obfuscates the reading.
> Q: Why is top posting so bad?
>
> -------------------------------------------
> Denis A. Altoe Falqueto
> -------------------------------------------
I don't think the recent flame-war revolves around Dbus beeing
"evil" or technically unsuited. I've studied a little bit Dbus, and my
opinions can be summarized as:
* another way to do IPC, but oriented towards a Object-Oriented
interface; (of course with the mandatory complex XML configuration;)
* poorly documented; (I refer to libraries and bindings,
tutorials, examples, etc.)
* and maybe *abused* by almost every single desktop application;
* finally adopted by more than a project (mostly Gnome / GTK
related projects); (which is the biggest plus);
Now I think that the recent rants were against this *abuse* of
Dbus, than against the tool itself. By abuse I mean: most applications
require (if enabled at compile time) for Dbus to be running (as a hard
constraint), and break if it's not running or start the dbus process
themselves.
Ciprian.
