On 27 May 2009, Lennart Poettering outgrape: > On Thu, 28.05.09 04:53, Patrick Shirkey (pshirkey at boosthardware.com) wrote: > >> I think it is useful that you have the internal api calls so dbus is not >> a requirement for communicating with PA. > > I am sorry to inform you that eventually PA will use D-Bus for client > communication too. What, no shared library? Won't that break compatibility with, well, every single PA user? Won't that piss off every single PA user? We've seen this sort of thing with gstreamer before, and even now, *years* later, there are still some apps that haven't migrated to the gstreamer 0.10 API. And that was a relatively minor thing, not a matter of ripping out simple function calls and changing it to thrashing about with d-bus. Plus: anything can make function calls, but personally after one experience too many with libdbus killing my entire application without warning or notice because it disliked something I'd done, I'd rather throw myself off a very high cliff than use libdbus in anything for which crashing has bad consequences. Note that e.g. the X developers came to the same conclusion regarding using dbus in the X server. If PA moves to only allowing clients to communicate with it via dbus, then applications that must not crash will have to stop talking to PA, it's that simple.
