clarity of concept [LWN.net]

clarity of concept

Posted Nov 7, 2014 11:47 UTC (Fri) by judas_iscariote (guest, #47386)
In reply to: clarity of concept by atai
Parent article: Kdbus meets linux-kernel

If developers of other unix systems have the need of such library then it is up to them to provide it, if you expect linux userspace plumbers to do the job for other systems you are fooling yourself.

That said, libdbus-1 is still available, maintained and portable, so people can use that for whatever they need. making sd_bus portable will actually be harmful and a supreme waste of time.

to post comments

clarity of concept

Posted Nov 7, 2014 14:33 UTC (Fri) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link] (2 responses)

If they had the same api that might be true. But having two different APIs for the same thing, one easier to use only implemented in a non-portable library, the other harder to use and implemented in a portable library, is just a stupid situation to end up in. (I'd expect someone to make a portable implementation of the sdbus api.)

clarity of concept

Posted Nov 7, 2014 15:28 UTC (Fri) by ebassi (subscriber, #54855) [Link] (1 responses)

why would you port the systemd DBus API?

the GDBus and QtDBus API are already portable, thread safe, well documented, and available on various systems, if you don't want to use libdbus-1.

clarity of concept

Posted Nov 7, 2014 19:01 UTC (Fri) by krake (guest, #55996) [Link]

Indeed!

I think a lot of people are under the misconception that libdbus-1 is intended to be used by application developers.

Its main purpose is to provide the basic protocol support for usage in actual application libraries, very similar to how XCB provides basic X11 protocol support for toolkits.

And quite some of the application developer facing D-Bus libraries have moved to their own protocol implementations, e.g. to provide better integration with the target stack's capabilities.