Hi,
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 4:16 AM, James Rayner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 3:53 PM, Paulo Matias [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 2:49 AM, James Rayner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
my support for [core], as an upcoming netcfg version will take
advantage of the wpa_supplicant dbus interface.
Please avoid using dbus in netcfg. I like it because it's clean, KISS,
and uses only default/native stuff. I can help integrating with UNIX
domain sockets or UDP sockets if needed.
[1] http://hostap.epitest.fi/wpa_supplicant/devel/wpa__ctrl_8c-source.html
It wasn't an immediate decision to use dbus and I did evaluate other
options such as the aforementioned sockets interface.
dbus is just as default/native if not more native than a custom
control interface. These days, you'll struggle to find a system out
there which doesnt at least have dbus installed. I picked the dbus
setup as it's quicker for me to implement, easier to maintain in the
long term, more KISS and easily the future for linux wireless
configuration.
I agree the dbus interface is quicker to implement. This is why I
offered help to implement the socket stuff if needed. Anyway, it would
not take a lot of time, as the /dev/udp bash interface could be used.
But if you think dbus is the future for Linux wireless configuration,
and that wpa_supplicant would let another control interfaces
unmaintained or even drop them, then it is really better to use dbus
since now.
dbus should be available in 2.2 and default in 3.0. In 3.0 the old
interface will not be removed, instead renamed to wireless-old and
so available for those who dislike dbus for some odd reason.
Great.
How will the new wireless interface be configured? DAEMONS=(dbus
net-profiles) for those who want it being configured at boot up?
If you want to implement a sockets interface, go for it. netcfg is
designed to be modular, allowing a range of different interfaces
implemented in any programming language (more in 2.2).
Yes, I know. It's very a good job you had done in netcfg. It was very
easy to implement a modified wireless-ral interface when I needed
some iwpriv magic to use WPA in my ralink card, in the times I had
to use rt73-cvs :)
Thanks for the quick response and please don't understand me bad. I
really appreciate your work, and I was only willing to help.
If I was too boring, please forgive this purism and my fears. The
first thing that had came to my mind when I read the dbus in [core]
message was a lot of another services (like hal) being included after
that, but no, this is not going to happen.
Best regards,
Paulo Matias
