Re: Module Proposal: Rygel

["Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)" <zeenix gmail com>]

Hi,

On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Sergey Udaltsov
<sergey udaltsov gmail com> wrote:
>>   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)

  Not really. Can the user share his directories if the system-wide
deamon is not running? Sure, if the user has admin privileges she is
asked for the authentication and is able to start samba daemon but we
can't assume each user has the admin rights.

>> 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" ;)

  That is because you seem to be keen on admin intervention while I am
keen on each user to be as free (from admin) as possible. :)

>>   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?

  Because it's Rygel that starts the communication being the client.
Also if we go the route you are recommending, each such application
will present user configuration in it's own UI and there will be no
centralized place for user to control his DLNA (media sharing &
playback) preferences.

>>   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?

  I don't think I alone can answer these questions and in this case I
shouldn't say anything being biased. :)

-- 
Regards,

Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)
FSF member#5124