On Dec 4, 2011, at 4:40 PM, Kay Sievers wrote: > > For very simple setups, the D-Bus bus daemon is not absolutely > necessary, and can probably be made optional with a few changes, but > the D-Bus protocol is used by systemctl to talk to systemd, and can > not really be optimized out.
systemctl talks directly to systemd via DBUS messages, or ONLY via dbus-deamon? We have not much problems with DBUS concept, DBUS message formats etc. But may we can scale it down to a minimum for embedded use. May transport DBUS messages over regular sockets, TIPC, NETLINK sockets or something like brokerless ZMQ. something does not require another deamon and becomes network transparent > > D-Bus is in not desktop centric, it's a plain IPC mechanism which lets > processes talk to each other. It's just that the desktop is not as > simple in its task as the usual base OS, so that it needs more > advanced technology like IPC and an object model to let components > integrate with each other Exatcly, thats what I mean, may we can remove some of the Desktop centric requirements and "just" use whats required in Server or embedded use cases. but keeping the vibrant ecosystem around DBUS and DBUS APIs. > For server OSs, and any other commonly used setup, there will be no > installation of systemd without D-Bus. It just can't work. > > Simple and limited embedded-like setups could work without the D-Bus > server, but still not really without the D-Bus protocol. > I agree. so lets call it eBUS a smaller DBUS use case, > Kay Holger _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
