Alan McKinnon wrote: > dbus is NOT a desktop daemon. This is very important, and that single > misunderstanding is probably behind all the fud you read about it. > > dbus implements a message bus - an amazingly useful thing to have. > > Why do you need or want a message bus? > > You might as well ask why do you need or want any other form of IPC you > already have, as that is what dbus is. It's a very small, light daemon, > can run system-wide or per-session and has the potential to many of the > IPC implementations you already have. Those are the ones that don't > happen to show up in ps so you hear very little whinging about them.
You might as well just use the existing IPC mechanisms too, especially on a server. Oh wait, that would take experience and the humility borne of it. > That desktop systems are the main user of dbus at this point in time > doesn't change one bit what dbus is designed to do and it's usefulness. Actually it was designed to be a desktop bus. That its mission has crept, or arguably the "developer" has made a land-grab, doesn't change that. Note I am not saying anything at all about the technical merits of dbus itself. I actually quite like the base protocol, just not all the crap on top of it. Kinda how I feel about the Java VM, fwtw. Regards, steveL -- #friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)
