Re: Module Proposal: Rygel

[Sergey Udaltsov <sergey udaltsov gmail com>]

>   Just because others do it in a particular way, doesn't make it
> right. Although Rygel can be run as a system-wide service, the main
> target use-case is that of providing services per-user[1] so for
> example each user can choose to share his media on the network rather
> than every user's media.
That use case is perfectly served by samba - having ONE system-level
daemon and multiple per-user shared directories (controlled by users)

> We want *each* user to have full control of
> whether she wants UPnP services to be enabled or not and then which
> services exactly she wants and what exactly she wants from it using a
> simple preferences UI.
I do not see any trouble with that. That is absolutely valid
requirement - except I'd replace "each user" with "each user belonging
to some group" ;)

>   Lets assume for a second that we want rygel to run as a
> system-service, how does rygel then communicate to processes running
> on session-bus (e.g tracker, rhythmbox, totem)?
AFAIK the typical model is working the other way around. If these
process have anything to say to system-level daemons, they "initiate"
communications. CMIIW. Why is that model bad for Rygel?

>   Lastly, rygel can be run as both system-wide service and
> per-session at the same time on the same machine.
That is a very important thing to know. In that case, I still have a
couple of questions:
- Should gnome "promote" per-session usage of Rygel (in case of
adoption), as more "desktop-oriented" mode of operation - or should
gnome be neutral in that aspect?
- What's the general approach for system-wide services in gnome? Does
GNOME need that kind of policy?Some system-wide services are really
useful for desktop, would GNOME adopt them?

Sergey