[arch-general] [OT] What is wrong with DBus anyway?

[Aaron Griffin]

On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Denis A. Altoé Falqueto
<denisfalqueto at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, fellow archers.
>
> I've created a new email with a new subject, so that who wants to
> ignore this completely, can do it easily.
>
> The recent past discussions about DBus got me thinking about an
> unanswered question: what is technically wrong with DBus? After some
> time researching about that, I can't find that answer by myself.
>
> DBus is just a way to make applications communicate. It can be used in
> several languages, namely C, C++, Java, Perl, Python, Ruby, and many
> more. There are tools for it in bash, although there's some
> limitations with that, but is very easy to do something fast in python
> or perl or ruby or...
>
> It (DBus) has some interesting mechanisms to activate daemons just
> when needed. I find this feature very interesting, so that you only
> spend the resources when you really need.
>
> One restriction is that it is not network enabled, so it only works
> locally. But in the home page, there is a invitation to improve that
> situation (http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/DBusRemote).
>
> Anyway, I would like to read what others have to say about DBus, but
> please give techinical reasons. I don't want to know who likes and who
> dislikes DBus. And I don't have anything against who dislikes DBus.
> Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

Mechanisms have existed for like 20 years before dbus to communicate
with other programs. dbus is just another way to do it that has a
smell of "architecture astronomy" - as if they all scoffed at the
actual ways to do IPC on various Unicies and said "Oh, I can design
better".

That's why I dislike it.