Re: [OT] What is wrong with DBus anyway?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]



On 12/03/2009 12:29 PM, Aaron Griffin wrote:
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.

I'll preface this by right up front saying that my knowledge of dbus is actually pretty limited. So forgive me if I'm off-base in my comments.

But frankly, I didn't think the *intent* behind dbus was as a replacement for IPC. As I understood it, dbus was intended to be a system-wide message bus - i.e., a very generic pub/sub type of system that could be used by any component in the system. Some components would publish messages of a particular, and other components would get notified about messages of a type they're interested in and react to them.

Makes some sense to me to do things this way, as then you can just have a single, standard system-wide daemon that every app interacts with in the same way, rather than force each app to reinvent the wheel and implement their own solution.

DR


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Wireless]     [Linux Kernel]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]
  Powered by Linux