In the case of dbus, it probably makes sense to represent dbus
sources as sites and vobjects, and dbus messages become vos messages. If
there's a semantic equivalent to a dbus thing in VOS, you have the dbus
vobject send it to a vobject to translate it.Then all the dbus
concepts map to vos
Lalo Martins wrote:
Conversely, on Linux, I have long wanted to have d-bus bindings, which
would achieve more or less the same effect. That is something that
probably will be in s5 out of the box -- you add a site extension
(assuming site extensions exist in s5; or whatever is the equivalent
Quick thing to point out, COM and D-BUS are fundamentially different in
that COM objects are usually loaded in-process, whereas D-BUS is used to
communicate between running processes. Interoperability has a number of
different dimensions, and concurrency/flow-of-control issues are a
critical