[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: netconf control socket protocol: rfc822, xml-rpc, or dbus



On mar, jan 08, 2008 at 11:32:29 +0000, martin f krafft wrote:
> While working on Ikiwiki, it dawned on me that I really ought to be
> using XML RPC for this [2]. Why? Because it's already
> there to do exactly the kind of thing I am doing, and standardised.
> Furthermore, dbus *is* XML RPC.

  That's wrong, and XML-RPC *SUCKS*, as does most of the text-only
interfaces, when you want real-time events. DBus isn't such a bad way to
do things, it doesn't requires the daemon up and running to interact
with netconf, when netconf acts as a dbus server. I assume that it's
possible to write tools that directly hit your netconf server withouth
going through the dbus daemon, making it lightweight and a really good
solution even for small systems.

  And then for 0 cost, you see desktops being able to use your
procedures being routed automatically through the dbus daemon acting as a
proxy. At least it's what I grok reading [0]. And that's an invaluable
advantage as almost all desktop applications are slowly (or not _that_
slowly actually) migrating to DBus. It means that you'll provide a
tested robust known interface to people wanting to interface with you.


  [0] http://dbus.freedesktop.org/doc/dbus-tutorial.html#uses
      http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/dbus#head-3aa36e8e37a29ac8985a5ae4f29a7a3d7dde231d

-- 
·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O                                                madcoder@debian.org
OOO                                                http://www.madism.org

Attachment: pgpcSEgpOKBnV.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: