On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 13:13 +0100, Rodrigo Moya wrote: > On Sun, 2004-11-07 at 18:33 +0000, Christian Meyer wrote: > > Am Sonntag, den 07.11.2004, 19:07 +0100 schrieb Rodrigo Moya: > > > > > it would be probably a good idea to have gnome-session be pluggable, so > > > that 3rd parties can write extensions for it for extra daemon-like > > > processes to be started. Thus, gnome-session would just have to load > > > those extensions and call a known entry point on them. > > > > > > That, or the number of daemons will continue growing :) > > > > Sounds like a good idea. Something like the eclipse (or EPlugin from > > Evolution) would be a good idea. Naturally, the gnome-session equivalent > > doesn't need every feature which is available in eclipse. > > > I wrote a little proposal about this at > http://rodrigo.gnome-db.org/news.php?8/November/2004 I disagree with the premise - that the problem is that we have "too many" daemons. If you want to optimize, just have unused daemons exit after a period of disuse. Very simple, parallel to the way things currently work. D-BUS activation will simply restart it if it has exited. Separate processes are also important because they let us apply security systems like SELinux, so that e.g. only one particular application can acquire a particular D-BUS service. The only argument for a single process I saw was this: <quote who="Jeff Waugh"> > The abstract idea of "a separate daemon makes it more reliable and > robust" does always not apply in practice - what does an admin do when > a user's desktop flashes up the right theme, and then goes back to the > default theme, and no longer lets her change it? When the admin > finally figures out it has to do with gnome-settings-daemon, they have > to find out why it's failing... and then fix it. But how is this better with a "daemon daemon"? Then half the user's desktop goes down, and you have to attach gdb or something to figure out what's going wrong, instead of just noticing that one particular daemon is dying. > When we talked about this on IRC, I asked if anyone knew what mapping- > daemon did -> no one knew. :-) [ It's used for burn:/// ] Sounds like a documentation problem. Also, if we make it so unused daemons exit, then more than likely no one will see mapping-daemon unless they burned a CD a minute ago. Now, as for replacing session management - I agree there. Having a shared library in gnome-session or whatever for writing service daemons sounds useful to me. But squashing everything into a single process does not.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part