Re: [Utopia] is gmv only ment for mountable stuff?

[Joe Shaw <joeshaw novell com>]

On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 13:44 -0400, Robert Love wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 13:31 -0400, John (J5) Palmieri wrote:
> 
> > My problem with this now is that it spawns a shell for every callout
> > script in the callout directories.  There is no intelligent routing
> > going on.  This is great for quick hacks but for the future when DBUS is
> > pervasive this will become a bottleneck.  Perhaps I should sit down and
> > write up in detail the idea for a pluggable policy daemon.  It extends
> > beyond HAL in usefulness.  Basically it eliminates the need to have
> > separate daemons running for each policy service (whether it be a HAL
> > policy or just some message coming over DBUS that envokes some sort of
> > policy).
> 
> OK, well this should be solved too - by DBUS activations.

d-bus can only activate as the user that the message bus is running as
(usually dbus or messagebus), and not as the user activating, so this is
out.

I like the idea of an xinetd-type approach.  We could ideally eliminate
the daemon portion of g-v-m in favor of callout scripts or programs from
the per-user daemon.

Joe