On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 7:42 PM, Denis A. Altoé Falqueto <denisfalqueto@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Felipe Tanus <fotanus@gmail.com> wrote:
Aaron didn't give any tech reason in his answear, and i don't think someone will do, except the one you already said at your first e-mail(no network). People who don't like DBus find it just unecessary. I like DBus because I belive it unify the IPC in a way others methods can't. It's more a question of taste than tech.
That's what I fell too, though is a little early to jump to conclusions.
The funny thing is that even who is not using a desktop can take advantage of a global bus for communication. And if it is standardized (even if a de facto standard), is good for everyone.
It is sad, isn't it?
-- A: Because it obfuscates the reading. Q: Why is top posting so bad?
------------------------------------------- Denis A. Altoe Falqueto -------------------------------------------
I don't think the recent flame-war revolves around Dbus beeing "evil" or technically unsuited. I've studied a little bit Dbus, and my opinions can be summarized as: * another way to do IPC, but oriented towards a Object-Oriented interface; (of course with the mandatory complex XML configuration;) * poorly documented; (I refer to libraries and bindings, tutorials, examples, etc.) * and maybe *abused* by almost every single desktop application; * finally adopted by more than a project (mostly Gnome / GTK related projects); (which is the biggest plus); Now I think that the recent rants were against this *abuse* of Dbus, than against the tool itself. By abuse I mean: most applications require (if enabled at compile time) for Dbus to be running (as a hard constraint), and break if it's not running or start the dbus process themselves. Ciprian.