Re: dbus - Was: A thread that shouldn't be mentioned anymore
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Joel Roth <joelz@pobox.com> wrote:
> Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>> On Tue, 2013-04-09 at 19:29 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2013-04-09 at 07:21 -1000, Joel Roth wrote:
>> > Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>> > > > dbus often is a PITA!
>> > >
>> > > Do you have experience with dbus's predecessors, such as
>> > > CORBA?
>> >
>> > No. I guess a predecessor won't help, if applications depend on dbus,
>> > such as jackd/jackdmp. I'm aware that I can use jackdmp without dbus,
>> > since I'm already doing this and I read that others are able to handle
>> > this dbus issue even when they run jack with dbus for sessions without
>> > X, IIUC.
>>
>> Oops, perhaps you mean that they were less good :D. I confused it with
>> the word "successor" and noticed it after I sent the mail.
>
> Perhaps D-Bus is not good, but maybe it is less bad?
>
> I'll go on the record in favor of configurability: good to
> be able to opt out if you don't need it.
>
> ( /me doesn't know if he needs it or not. )
D-Bus is good overall... There could definitely be improvements in
remote connections though. I think there are workarounds... I use only
CLI over SSH, though, so I never messed with it.
CORBA was just terrible. I have encountered it a bit in the old Gnome
days, and on AIX with CDE. Believe me, you don't want to deal with its
bullshit. And that is coming from a user/admin POV. From everything I
have heard it was worse for a programmer. I have done some simple Dbus
stuff in Python and such, it seems simple enough. I never want to have
to program any Corba...
Cheers,
Kelly Clowers
Reply to: