On Mon, 04 Nov 2013 18:12:15 +0200 Jussi Laako <[email protected]> said:
> On 4.11.2013 17:49, Thiago Macieira wrote: > > That's a very narrow point of view. It doesn't include: > > The original posting was about what glib uses internally to implement > dbus support and I responded that libdbus is obsolete for that since any > remotely recent version of glib doesn't depend on libdbus. > > > * EFL-based applications, whose binding is based on libdbus-1 > > Are EFL-based application glib-based? no. ala qt. > > * Qt-based applications, whose binding is also based on libdbus-1 > > I don't count Qt-applications as glib-based although I know Qt supports > glib mainloop, although I prefer to build Qt without glib support since > I don't see much point in it... > > > * older glib-based applications that use dbus-glib and haven't been ported > > They should do the port to avoid becoming obsolete... > > > * most system daemons, which are bindingless > > I don't know what you mean by this. > > > Nice thing with GIO's dbus implementation is that is can be easily used > for peer-to-peer dbus without dbus-daemon. In case auto-invocation is > needed, it is convenient to implement dummy session-bus interface that > just fires up the service and responds with socket address for p2p > communication. This improves communication efficiency and avoids many of > the performance and security problems caused by dbus-daemon without > requiring support for kdbus... > > As an example, we support p2p dbus in gSSO, in addition to traditional > system and session bus. > > _______________________________________________ > Dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/dev > -- Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/dev
