Re: D-Bus \approx Mbus

On Seg, 2003-03-03 at 16:46, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 04:32:19PM +0000, Gustavo J. A. M.  Carneiro wrote:
> >   See:
> > 
> >   Just one more example of reinventing the wheel.
> > 
> That thing isn't even remotely suitable for what we're trying to do
> here. There are a million possible things with 'message bus' in the
> name, or 'IPC' in the description, they are not all the same thing
> with the same goals and tradeoffs. If they were, we would just have a
> single opaque IPC mechanism, instead of having sockets.

  I don't agree.  This thing is originally meant for multimedia
applications.  But it has messages, addressing, security,
authentication, etc.  You shouldn't disregard it just because of the
word 'Media'.
  I realize you are in a better position to compare, since you
implemented D-Bus while I implemented none.  But saying "not even
remotely" is surely an exaggeration.
  At least this thing has an RFC (,
which makes it stand on its own.  Not that I'm advocating its use, but
it has been thoroughly engineered, it is no longer ad-hoc, unlike D-Bus.


PS:  Havoc, I respect you, but I honestly think you are wrong about
this.  Please don't forget to look at #81045 :)

Gustavo Joćo Alves Marques Carneiro
<gjc inescporto pt> <gustavo users sourceforge net>

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