On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Michael Mol <mike...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés <can...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Stroller >>> Reading that blog entry I found discouraging the idea that dbus might be >>> required on my servers in the future, if systemd becomes popular with >>> distros. >> >> I don't see the problem with D-Bus. It's small (the only hard >> dependency it has is an XML parser), and it provides the Linux/UNIX >> (de facto) standard interprocess communication system. > > My chief gripe with D-Bus is that I've had X sessions disappear out > from under me as a consequence of the daemon being restarted. Having a > single point of failure like that is very, very scary. Otherwise, I > like what it tries to do.
Restarting or dying? If it's dying, it's a bug and should be reported. I haven't had a crash in dbus in years, and I think pretty much everyone agrees it's pretty stable nowadays. It even tries to handle gracefully thins like out-of-memory errors and things like that. If it's restarting, why on earth will someone restart the system bus with active X sessions? If the dbus daemon is restarted, it has to kick all the apps from the bus, including the session manager. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
