Leaving the DBus yes or no debate, I think that there is a point in ensuring that both, the DBus and the socket interfaces share the exact same APIs. Right now they differ in aspects that make integrating with the wpa_supplicant difficult.
Kind regards,
Federico Sauter
On 10.11.19, 16:11, "Hostap on behalf of Gladish, Jacob" <hostap-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Jacob_Gladish@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I think dbus is pretty nice, but there are environments that won't run dbus. I'd propose that there would be one command/control interface and that the CLI would just be a client of that interface. If that's dbus, then fine, but something that didn't require another framework and just relied on libc would be better.
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrej Shadura <andrew@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2019 3:30 PM
To: Teunis Peters <teunis.peters@xxxxxx>
Cc: Gladish, Jacob <Jacob_Gladish@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; hostap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: socket interface
Hi,
On Thu, 31 Oct 2019 at 19:08, Teunis Peters <teunis.peters@xxxxxx> wrote:
> dbus has no business on embedded environments like AP it will not
> happen now, it may not ever happen.
This is not true, I’ve seen and developed embedded systems with D-Bus.
--
Cheers,
Andrej
_______________________________________________
Hostap mailing list
Hostap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/hostap
_______________________________________________
Hostap mailing list
Hostap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/hostap
