Re: rfc: gnome-inetd

On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 12:47 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> <quote who="Sean Middleditch">
> > The idea is that there are a list of commands port in GConf.  The daemon
> > reads these and listens on the ports - when a connection comes in it
> > launches the command, redirecting standard I/O to the new process.  Just
> > like inetd, for the most part.
> It would have to be "services" rather than "ports", because the ports are
> almost always dynamic (cf. vino, g-u-s).

Good point.  Abstracting that into a separate daemon wouldn't be bad,
either.  ~_^

It could also handle any mDNS registration automatically, even for
services that don't themselves know how.

> > Best of all, because this is managed by GConf, administrators have
> > control.  They can mandate that some services are always on (desktop
> > sharing, which admins probably use the most) and others are always off.
> > Configuration dialogs for various services would simple mark an enabled or
> > disabled flag for services for users to turn them on and off (if they are
> > allowed to).
> The greatest impact something like this would have is on user interaction.
> Currently, vino and g-u-s have their own entirely separate dialogues for
> enabling/disabling *and* configuration. What we should have instead, is a
> dialogue for service enabling/disabling and 'Configure...' buttons for each,
> if they require configuration. Example:

You know, I thought about putting something like that in my original
mail, but then actually thought that it might be *bad* thing.  You know,
just because they're services shared over a port doesn't mean they
belong in a dialog together, ya?

For something where its all sharing (Document Sharing, Desktop Sharing,
Music Sharing, whatever) perhaps it makes sense, but not so much for
things like chat programs and such.  Although I *do* think those should
be rolled together - the difference between video chat and text chat
isn't all that much, but the fact that one is handled in GnomeMeeting
and the other in Gossip/GAIM is kinda thrown in your face constantly...

(And yes, before someone mentions it, I know a lot of chat protocols
can't work "reactively" in an inetd-style, as they have to connect to
and stay connected to a central server.  There are things like iChat's
local-net protocol and so on, however.)

>  [x] Remote Desktop    (Configure...) -> runs the little config dialogue app
>  [ ] File Sharing
> (Man, it's hard to describe g-u-s accurately and concisely, without
> confusing it with things like Samba or NFS. Maybe "Web File Sharing"?)

"What do you mean, Jeff?  It uses WebNFS?"  ;-)

> - Jeff

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