On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 03:24:22PM +0100, Pavel Březina wrote: > On 03/10/2014 06:14 PM, Sumit Bose wrote: > >On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 03:02:30PM +0100, Jakub Hrozek wrote: > >>Fair enough. I saw both complaints from potential consumers -- some > >>developers were going "omg dbus is such a heavyweight desktop technology, > >>do I really need to use it" ? I realize 'hiding' dbus behind a different > >>name might be a little irrational, but so were their concerns in my > >>opinion. > > > >I think as long as well call it the D-Bus responder we should keep dbus > >in the names. Otherwise we might get questions like 'How do I start the > >InfoPipe responder?'. > > It is actually already confusing. We never use anything else than > D-Bus responder, but the responder itself in Jakub's branch is > called ifp.
That's because the original DBus responder from cca 2008 was called InfoPipe, I simply reused the original name. Are you proposing to call the responder simply dbus? _______________________________________________ sssd-devel mailing list sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel
