Mario Lang, on Tue 17 Nov 2015 22:11:15 +0100, wrote: > When we originally planned to do it via SHM, D-Bus was not around. > Is SHM still the best option?
It's *way* faster than any IPC. > However, D-Bus has access control, and maybe we could make use of that > to minimize potential security risks obviously exposed by such a patch. Unix access control on the SHM should be fine enough. > The libraries are a convenience, but it is perfectly > possible to code a standalone AT-SPI client just by using a D-Bus > binding. Yes, but even a D-Bus binding is quite tedious to implement, compared to just exposing the screen content in a SHM. Samuel _______________________________________________ This message was sent via the BRLTTY mailing list. To post a message, send an e-mail to: BRLTTY@mielke.cc For general information, go to: http://mielke.cc/mailman/listinfo/brltty
