On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés <can...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.
I have no doubt a stellar amount of work has been done to gracefully handle problem scenarios. > > 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. Because I generally update my desktop system while running X, and on at least two occasions, an update killed my X session by restarting DBUS on me On the other hand, sshd handles restarts without killing active sessions. These are solvable problems which DBUS hasn't solved yet for itself. High-availability is one of the best-researched fields in computer science, but DBUS doesn't handle that case, yet. -- :wq
