Il 01/09/2016 07:33, Selva Nair ha scritto: > > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 7:19 PM, David Sommerseth > <open...@sf.lists.topphemmelig.net > <mailto:open...@sf.lists.topphemmelig.net>> wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 31/08/16 23:25, Selva Nair wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 4:11 PM, David Sommerseth > > <open...@sf.lists.topphemmelig.net > <mailto:open...@sf.lists.topphemmelig.net> > > <mailto:open...@sf.lists.topphemmelig.net > <mailto:open...@sf.lists.topphemmelig.net>>> wrote: > > > > > It is not being planned to remove the management interface. If > > > D-Bus works well for everyone on all platforms, then we can disc > uss > > > what to do next. But as of now, I have no plans to remove this > > > part of the code. > > > > > > That's all what I wanted to hear -- as long as the management interfac > e > > (MI) is not going anywhere, no need to panic, right? I like the simple > > design of the current MI that makes it so easy to debug over command > > line, support on virtually any platform without external libraries etc > . > > Even with D-Bus one has to still send messages specific to the > > application and the UI developer has to learn a few new keywords. Not > > very different from the current state of affairs unless we have a use > > case that is not easy to support over the current MI. I have never use > d > > D-Bus so no idea of the status of Windows support -- I believe the > > reference implementation as a windows port, not sure how well maintain > ed > > it is. > > I noticed that the upstream D-Bus community have embraced the Windows > port and included all fixes for Windows there. So it is probably > somewhat better maintained nowadays. But I have not looked where to > download things. > > If I've understood some of the D-Bus docs correctly, it should also be > possible to use D-Bus without a "master daemon" running too, but that > needs to be investigated further. > > No, no need to panic :) But I think that GUI's may also have some > advantages of using D-Bus too, such as getting a more instant > notifications when something goes wrong, or if a user needs to > re-authenticate. But I am completely open to explore these areas and > not set things to stone now. > > > My advice, just leave the management-interface alone, at least until a > real need for a different framework arises . It "ain't broke", so why > fix it? > > The amount of communication we need/have between OpenVPN and UI's is so > minimal that it shouldn't take more than an hour for a developer to > "learn" the current management "protocol". Replacing or even augmenting > it with D-Bus bringing in new dependency and a lot of bloat doesn't make > much sense; nor does it look worth the time and effort to me..
The main benefit seems to be easing the management of clients from the server-side. This could prove useful when managing VPN servers that have large numbers of clients, for example in the VPN service provider use-case. Is that the primary use-case you're thinking of, David? -- Samuli Seppänen Community Manager OpenVPN Technologies, Inc irc freenode net: mattock ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Openvpn-devel mailing list Openvpn-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openvpn-devel
