I am behind using dbus as well. Raw sockets programming (I do a lot of
it) is a PITA. We should be going with something where a library has
taken care of some of the details.
Tom
On Sat, 2004-03-06 at 17:52, Armin Bauer wrote:
> Dbus is very appealing indeed.
> I think if we were to use it we sh
Dbus is very appealing indeed.
I think if we were to use it we should not rely on the system or session
services so we would need to provide either a completly standalone
server or fallback to standalone if we cant connect to the session bus.
I think once dbus gets picked up it will eventually get
I think the problem with sockets is that we then need to write code to
parse the input. This will probably be error prone... but very portable
:)
Do you know xmlrpc? It is working over sockets and we would ne have to
parse anything... And it is ported to all unices (afaik) and even
windows. But i
On Sat, 2004-03-06 at 20:51, David A. Desrosiers wrote:
> > My vote goes to D-Bus. D-Bus is written to be portable so portability
> > shouldn't be an issue.
>
> Does Solaris currently have support for D-Bus? What about Win32
> (where this can be easily ported)? FreeBSD? Other Unixes? Anythin
> My vote goes to D-Bus. D-Bus is written to be portable so portability
> shouldn't be an issue.
Does Solaris currently have support for D-Bus? What about Win32
(where this can be easily ported)? FreeBSD? Other Unixes? Anything other
than Linux?
d.
On Sat, 2004-03-06 at 17:50, David A. Desrosiers wrote:
> > I think the most important thing to decide first is what transport to
> > use (dbus, xmlrpc, sockets, etc). Any thoughts on this one?
>
> My vote is for sockets, for maximum portability between platforms.
My vote goes to D-Bus. D-B
> > My vote is for sockets, for maximum portability between platforms.
> I second this...dbus and xmlrpc are too bloaty, and not as portable.
> dependencies bad!!!
We could always make the underlying protocol pluggable in the
future, as another plugin-style API, but let's focus on on
> I think the most important thing to decide first is what transport to
> use (dbus, xmlrpc, sockets, etc). Any thoughts on this one?
My vote is for sockets, for maximum portability between platforms.
d.
---
This SF.Net email is spon
Hi,
I had some free time on my hand (others would say i took a day off from
learning :) so i summarized and looked through what we will need for the
0.90 milestone:
Requirements:
* Support for more than two SyncDevice per SyncGroup
* Plugin system for SyncDevicePlugins
* Commu
