Re: D-Bus

[Michael Meeks <michael ximian com>]

Hi Havoc,

	I plan to respond to your lengthy post later; However this really gets
my goat.

	Ultimately D/BUS doesn't matter 1 tiny piece. What really matters is
that Gnome has no conflict resolution process, nor shared vision, nor
way of articulating one - this means that people can abuse their
position ( as a distributor, maintainer of core components etc. ) to
achieve their particular goals. It also leads to a gladitorial
development where people waste vast amounts of time and effort.

	Nonetheless - these comments are particularly egregious:

On Fri, 2003-02-28 at 18:05, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> Also, there are a couple of serious problems with our current IPC
> setup (uncontrolled reentrancy and refcount-based lifecycle) that are
> not really fixable without ABI breakage.

	I do believe you're talking rubbish again. But for the fact that you
have a vested interest to do so I'd believe that was just an error:

	So - you're idea for 'fixing' the 'uncontrollable' re-enterancy is to
queue everything until idle: well, that's really tough to do. If -
instead of re-writing this stuff in GConf / nautilus / etc. people had
bothered to do the right thing and implement a 'delay till idle' POA
policy - this would have been trivially fixed once. It's a comparatively
tiny amount of API addition.

	As for the lifecycle issue - you can do connection lifetime based
lifecycle already, and produce a reliable daemon / bus that doesn't use
reference counting with the existing infrastructure.

>  Yes, with sufficient hacks you can work around these issues

	Baa - why bother when they make a convenient excuse,

	Regards,

		Michael.

-- 
 mmeeks gnu org  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot