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

Re: 9p/plumber to replace D-Bus?

On Vi, 12 dec 14, 11:35:03, berenger.morel@neutralite.org wrote:
> So, you have to choose between:
> _ having a daemon running everytime, and an application which needs to
> listen at it's socket everytime (I guess it's how dbus works? If someone
> have any clue about this part of internal, I would be happy to learn), but
> which have a more flexible way to send messages (not tied to a protocol? I'm
> not that sure, but I suppose it can at least support non-standard messages),
> which is something I do not like: if the daemon crash, for a reason or
> another, or is exposed to a security issue, it's all applications using it
> which are in danger. 

In my very humble opinion (I'm not a programmer), applications should 
probably treat the message bus similar to network access:

- if not available handle it gracefully
- treat everything that comes from it as potentially dangerous

> Plus, it's not portable.

The authors claim otherwise.

This might be interesting reading (though it seems slightly outdated to 


Kind regards,
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: