From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1R4zlc-000395-MV for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 17 Sep 2011 18:37:33 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3FA2221C126; Sat, 17 Sep 2011 18:37:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wy0-f181.google.com (mail-wy0-f181.google.com [74.125.82.181]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3D9421C0AF for ; Sat, 17 Sep 2011 18:36:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wyg36 with SMTP id 36so4589020wyg.12 for ; Sat, 17 Sep 2011 11:36:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=NGXF/nMlFc3b7fZgxUZV8CHTiIfIerJm3uEjlgItUhw=; b=mcLnCR0TAtFVjcclMBrXh9PkGioeyycamI619kZ+f79cNDWgFqeZU5yjDgNTWaMQgI BbQXGpdf6TmTev4j+BFYUBUoR2YtauZo43vA5LXM0NAX5sfx5zTMJgoD2stSFju9feVI mASJXZqvH8jqnUMr+sFUlKmRs3GVw7OCM9kq4= Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.178.194 with SMTP id f44mr786809wem.110.1316284587089; Sat, 17 Sep 2011 11:36:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.38.140 with HTTP; Sat, 17 Sep 2011 11:36:26 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20110912150248.GB3599@acm.acm> <1728923.nQPHW4UTlG@eve> <1495175.Z7uWjMfsve@eve> Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 14:36:26 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] udev + /usr From: =?UTF-8?B?Q2FuZWsgUGVsw6FleiBWYWxkw6lz?= To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 709275fdd02a6df990bf7bf42484da44 On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Michael Mol wrote: > On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Canek Pel=C3=A1ez Vald=C3=A9s wrote: >> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 2:45 AM, Joost Roeleveld wr= ote: > [[snippage]] >>> I still think Gnome (or any other desktop environment) should not care = about >>> which init-system is being used. >> >> And they will not. They will only use some capabilities that a system >> provides, and use it if available. It's the exact same thing as udev. >> > > [[snippage]] > >> a) dbus is not part of the GUI, b) like it or not, it's the >> standardized IPC mechanism in Linux. If it's available, let's use it. > > This is exactly the same attitude of convenience that led to udev > being abused, and then to the very decisions by udev's maintainer that > started off the firestorm on this list over the last couple weeks. The > system is *bloating* at an incredible rate. > >> >>> There are already well-tested and working mechanisms for communication = where >>> needed. >> >> I would like for you to be more specific about them. > > Sockets, be they UNIX domain sockets, IPv4 or IPv6. [snip] > Shared memory: [snip] > Pipes: [snip] Yeah, but then you need to design, implement and debug a protocol communication: what part of the wire speaks first, what does it says, what are the valid responses, etc. And then, if other component wants to communicate, it has to learn your little protocol. dbus standardize this. And it uses sockets, shared memory and pipes as building blocks, I believe, > Not sure what others there are, but those have existed longer than > I've been alive, and been standard since the early 1990s. They are standard in the sense that they are a low level communication standard API. An IPC is *way* more than that; dbus is an IPC, because then you have high level "objects" and "methods", no matter the language of the two sides of the wire communicating, or even if the objects live in the same computer or not. BTW, there *was* an standard that did everything dbus does: ORB, the Object Request Broker. They tried to use that as IPC years ago, but is so damn complicated to implement right they decided to better implement a new standard. The standard is dbus. > Progress is > adding new functionality, not reimplementing existing functionality as > new APIs on top of the existing functionality. I think you are wrong if you believe that dbus is just "existing functionality as new APIs on top of the existing functionality". dbus is a complete IPC system. Neither sockets, shared memory nor pipes are an IPC, because they lack a well defined protocol. You *can* do the same you do with dbus if you only use sockets/sharedmem/pipes, but then you need to do it over and over and over again. Is like the difference between assembler and C: you *can* do the same with both, but that does not mean that is actually a good idea to only use assembler. > That's little better > than busywork for people who could be building something actually new. dbus offers new functionality, like I said. Regards. --=20 Canek Pel=C3=A1ez Vald=C3=A9s Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingenier=C3=ADa de la Computaci=C3=B3n Universidad Nacional Aut=C3=B3noma de M=C3=A9xico