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

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

2014/12/13 3:44 "Miles Fidelman" <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>:
> So... in all of this thread, I have yet to see anybody actually talk about 9p or plumber - details, and more importantly, in comparison to D-Bus.
> I mean, 9p has been in the Linux Kernal for years (as compared to, say, kdbus), and it is actually used in some interesting places (erlang-on-xen, libvirt-to-quemu communications) where both the functionality and performance are rather critical.
> Does anybody have any direct, technical experience here?

I have been thinking about installing plan 9 on an old box here, will probably do so. Right now, that box is my wedge for learning how to manage an openbsd box. (Plan 9 has some really interesting stuff, but I wouldn't be able to do some of my necessary work on it.)

So, I've been reading the plan 9 website.

Near as I can tell, p9 and plumber are less a replacement for the fluff that is dbus than a replacement for the infrastructure dbus is built on.

My guess is that dbus on p9/plumber would be so obvious and dead simple that we'd go back to dbus on sockets/signals/mmap/so-forth, and say to ourselves, "Oh. Why did we bother extnding the desktop manager paste buffer like that?" (Of course, I'm already saying that anyway, so YMMV.)

Joel Rees

Reply to: