Re: D-Bus \approx Mbus

["Gustavo J. A. M. " Carneiro <gjc inescporto pt>]

On Seg, 2003-03-03 at 16:46, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 04:32:19PM +0000, Gustavo J. A. M.  Carneiro wrote:
> >   See: http://www.mbus.org/
> > 
> >   Just one more example of reinventing the wheel.
> > 
> 
> That thing isn't even remotely suitable for what we're trying to do
> here. There are a million possible things with 'message bus' in the
> name, or 'IPC' in the description, they are not all the same thing
> with the same goals and tradeoffs. If they were, we would just have a
> single opaque IPC mechanism, instead of having sockets.

  I don't agree.  This thing is originally meant for multimedia
applications.  But it has messages, addressing, security,
authentication, etc.  You shouldn't disregard it just because of the
word 'Media'.
  I realize you are in a better position to compare, since you
implemented D-Bus while I implemented none.  But saying "not even
remotely" is surely an exaggeration.
  At least this thing has an RFC (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3259.txt),
which makes it stand on its own.  Not that I'm advocating its use, but
it has been thoroughly engineered, it is no longer ad-hoc, unlike D-Bus.

  Regards.


PS:  Havoc, I respect you, but I honestly think you are wrong about
this.  Please don't forget to look at #81045 :)

-- 
Gustavo Joćo Alves Marques Carneiro
<gjc inescporto pt> <gustavo users sourceforge net>