Le 15/03/2018 à 07:22, Steve Litt a écrit :
There are alternatives to communicating through dbus. If two
processes are necessary, a socket or a pipe can do it. If more
structured communication is necessary and you don't need two
processes (why would you in this case), other famous applications use
a kind of dynamically linked libraries (plugins).
LOL, I've used the kill command from one shellscript to another to tell
the shellscript when to look for the next "thing". And sometimes a
simple FIFO is enough, as described in pages 18-20 of
http://troubleshooters.com/linux/presentations/leap_digitizing/leap_digitizing.pdf
That setup between asyncronous producer and modifier programs is as old
as computers themselves.
I think the issue is with the psychology of the programmer. It's
possible to have fun playing with these communication tools, at least
for young programmer discovering them. If you're in love with C++,
you'll possibly enjoy D-bus, because it's designed with C++ in mind. And
you'll interface your pocket calculator emulator with D-bus, just for
the fun of it. Not forgetting, of course, the company willing to make
money out of complexity.
Didier
_______________________________________________
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
