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

[David Zeuthen <david fubar dk>]

On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 14:05 -0400, Joe Shaw wrote:
> 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.
> 

But you want all the policy handling to be at the session-level anyway,
so the program being activated will run as the user logged in. One
benefit of handling policy in the session rather than at the system
level is that you have access to the users preferences from gconf.

> 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.
> 

Well, yeah, it might be easier to do an xinetd session level daemon than
trying to fit this with D-BUS activation. 

In fact, isn't D-BUS activation supposed to activate a D-BUS session-
level service (with objects and interfaces) rather than acting on
signals from somewhere and then doing a mount(1) and then exiting? 

Cheers,
David