Actually I seem to agree with Scott on this, that it is OK for Upstart to depepend on a System Bus( or some key piece of infrastruture) to be fully funcitonal.
As I understand it, Upstart will be able to start/stop/restart processes without D-Bus. Only when the rest of the world wants to talk to Upstart is D-Bus really needed and it seems reasonable to require it. Here I am using the word D-Bus in place of a need for a reasonably flexible communication/messaging mechanism. Until D-Bus becomes as ubiquituous as Unix domain sockets, tying communication with D-Bus. But that said, D-Bus is a fine choice for now. I hope though, the Upstart community is open to code contributions from us that allow for modular alternatives to D-Bus. Ofcourse without compromising on performance or clean code. Thx, Sarvi >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >Garrett Cooper >Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 3:25 PM >To: Michael Biebl >Cc: [email protected]; Casey Dahlin; Scott James Remnant >Subject: Re: Clarification on upstart-0.5 and dbus usage > >On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 3:19 PM, Michael Biebl ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 2008/6/19 Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> On Thu, 2008-06-19 at 00:10 +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: >>> >>>> 2008/6/18 Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>>> > On Wed, 2008-06-18 at 16:11 -0400, Casey Dahlin wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> The DBus interface can be accessed in one of 2 ways. One is >>>> >> actually running the dbus daemon, and accessing the >>>> >> com.ubuntu.Upstart object on the system bus. >>>> >> >>>> > Actually, this is the only supported way. >>>> > >>>> > While there is another, secret, way -- it's not intended for >>>> > general use and may change or be taken away without notice. >>>> >>>> Hm, I'd actually prefer somehow, if core tools, like >>>> initctl/runlevel/telinit etc would talk to upstart >directly without >>>> the need of a running dbus system bus. >>>> >>> Any particular reason? >> >> - Someone deletes his dbus job file. >> - dbus-daemon fails to start (misconfiguration, whatever) >> - upstart would be usable without the complete dbus package >(it would >> only have to depend on libdbus) >> >> It's more of a gut feeling, that relying on the system bus for these >> core tools, makes upstart more fragile and error prone. >> >> Cheers, >> Michael > >I have to agree with Michael. More possible points of human >input for upstart during critical stages in system startup >just make it more brittle when dealing with confused users or >misconfigured systems, input from rogue scripts, etc, esp when >dbus is a shared 'resource' >amongst different system applications. >-Garrett > >-- >upstart-devel mailing list >[email protected] >Modify settings or unsubscribe at: >https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/upstart-devel > -- upstart-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/upstart-devel
