Mitt Green <[email protected]> writes: > Not sure if that was sarcasm though. > > Anyway, why do we need dbus if we can live > without it? > > I've seen these [1] cool figures explaining what it is > but neither them, > nor the article didn't give me the answer why it is > necessary.
"Necessary" is a bit of a bad category because anything can be implemented in some other way, hence nothing is strictly necessary. D-BUS is an OO RPC system intended to enable long-running applications to call methods implemented by other long-running applications provided these other long-running applications run on the same computer. This implies that it defines a general convention for naming 'objects' and manages the corresponding names. It also defines (another) universal encoding for records composed of typed fields so that these can be serialized into byte streams and then again deserialized. Lastly, D-Bus is also the program providing the 'single point of failure' and 'most annoying performance bottleneck' for programs desiring to exchange data using the D-Bus protocol. Since its designed to be general enough to be applicable to any conceivable use, it's also supposed to supplant all other non-networked IPC methods, eg, some future version of udev is supposed to use the D-Bus protocol in order to get information from the kernel instead of receiving mostly textual 'uevent notifications' via AF_NETLINK socket. That's another "how everyone else does it" usual component of a graphical dekststop environment and a fundamental building block of the "everything crossdepends on everything else in a way nobody really understands" organizational structure dekstop developers consider the only viable way of doing anything. _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list [email protected] https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
