[Dev] [RFC] kdbus transport for DBus

Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) tizen at rasterman.com
Mon Nov 4 23:47:34 GMT 2013

On Mon, 04 Nov 2013 18:12:15 +0200 Jussi Laako <jussi.laako at linux.intel.com>

> On 4.11.2013 17:49, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > That's a very narrow point of view. It doesn't include:
> The original posting was about what glib uses internally to implement 
> dbus support and I responded that libdbus is obsolete for that since any 
> remotely recent version of glib doesn't depend on libdbus.
> >   * EFL-based applications, whose binding is based on libdbus-1
> Are EFL-based application glib-based?

no. ala qt.

> >   * Qt-based applications, whose binding is also based on libdbus-1
> I don't count Qt-applications as glib-based although I know Qt supports 
> glib mainloop, although I prefer to build Qt without glib support since 
> I don't see much point in it...
> >   * older glib-based applications that use dbus-glib and haven't been ported
> They should do the port to avoid becoming obsolete...
> >   * most system daemons, which are bindingless
> I don't know what you mean by this.
> Nice thing with GIO's dbus implementation is that is can be easily used 
> for peer-to-peer dbus without dbus-daemon. In case auto-invocation is 
> needed, it is convenient to implement dummy session-bus interface that 
> just fires up the service and responds with socket address for p2p 
> communication. This improves communication efficiency and avoids many of 
> the performance and security problems caused by dbus-daemon without 
> requiring support for kdbus...
> As an example, we support p2p dbus in gSSO, in addition to traditional 
> system and session bus.
> _______________________________________________
> Dev mailing list
> Dev at lists.tizen.org
> https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/dev

Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) <tizen at rasterman.com>

More information about the Dev mailing list