On 2013-11-04, 01:00 +0000, MyungJoo Ham wrote: > > On sexta-feira, 1 de novembro de 2013 14:25:48, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > > > e_dbus and eldbus (the e one(s)) use libdbus - so if libdbus ports to > > > kdbus.. efl will be fine. :) > > > > That's not going to happen. libdbus-1 will not be ported because the > > codebase > > is too hard to work with. One of the major sources of performance problems > > in > > D-Bus is the recursive marshalling code in that library, which was written > > in > > 2005 and was never optimised. > > libdbus port for kdbus? > > https://review.tizen.org/gerrit/gitweb?p=platform/upstream/dbus.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/kdbus-dev
That's what these discussions are talking about, (my understanding) port libdbus (and make all these changes transparent to libdbus users) approach is not align with upstream, and leads to a dead end. But as Carsten and Thiago said in another mails, bridge daemon and port to kdbus separately for EACH individual libdbus user approach seems too heavy however. Can we push back to upstream? (about port libdbus) Regards, Kangkai _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/dev
