On Thu, 12.12.13 15:22, Simon McVittie (simon.mcvit...@collabora.co.uk) wrote:
> On 12/12/13 14:28, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > kay and Daniel are working on changing the semantics of monitoring > > entirely. Instead of turning monitoring on and off on an existing > > connection they want this to be an entirely new connection type > > Colin Walters wanted to do this in dbus-daemon too (a separate > /var/run/dbus/system_bus_monitor_socket that's only accessible by root, > or something), but nobody has got round to it yet. > > Another possibility might be to make the eavesdropped stream obviously > not the same thing as the normal D-Bus stream, for instance by wrapping > it in pcap format as used by bustle(1) (as in my proof-of-concept > dbus-daemon patches on > <https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=60859>). bustle-pcap(1) is > a standalone implementation of "connect, eavesdrop, produce a pcap > stream" for traditional D-Bus, similar to dbus-monitor. > > > the > > same way as "starter" (i.e. those which may be used to take a well-known > > name and get notified when the service behind it needs to be activated) > > connections are different from normal connections > > Please consider naming this differently: "starter" in the D-Bus > Specification (e.g. DBUS_STARTER_ADDRESS) is something rather different. > Maybe "placeholder"? Well, the "starter" stuff is something that app developers will never see. It's just the backend for the ".busname" unit type, that's all, and people only get in contact with .busname units, nothing else. Thus I don't think that the name is a big issue. OTOH I don't mind renaming it in the Kernel either. Kay? Maybe call it "activator" instead? Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
