2014/12/12 23:30 <berenger.mo...@neutralite.org>: > Le 12.12.2014 14:55, Joel Rees a écrit : >> 2014/12/12 21:08 : >> > Le 12.12.2014 13:05, Andrei POPESCU a écrit : >> >> On Jo, 11 dec 14, 17:33:51, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org [2] >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Plus, it's not portable >> >>> (anyone have seen dbus on windows? not sure, but I doubt it's on >> *BSD, too) >> >>> unlike sockets. >> >> >> >> From http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/dbus/ [3] >> >> >> >> D-Bus is very portable to any Linux or UNIX flavor, and a >> port to >> >> Windows is in progress.
Well, yeah, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for it. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Andrei >> > >> > Nice to learn about that, and sorry for wrong assumption. >> > Does someone use it on a non-linux based computer? Any experience >> about that would be appreciated. >> > >> FWIW, openbsd has an implementation of a "dbus" daemon just for the >> dbus dependent apps to talk to. >> >> It's not the dbus that you download from freedesktop.org [4], of >> course. > > So I was wrong. Good to know :) I did say it was not the dbus you download from freedesktop.org, didn't I? ;-/ My understanding is that it is not just a port. Re-written from scratch, I think. Stuff that just tries to be a lazy man's sockets largely left out, I think. I would not say that you were exactly wrong. Portability is not just a matter of getting things to compile, and there are some features of dbus that one would just as soon leave out when re-implementing it.