Re: D-Bus
- From: Michael Meeks <michael ximian com>
- To: Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>
- Cc: Sean Middleditch <elanthis awesomeplay com>, GNOME Desktop Hackers <desktop-devel-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: D-Bus
- Date: 03 Mar 2003 11:12:20 +0000
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
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]