On 03/13/2014 10:33 AM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 03:24:22PM +0100, Pavel Březina wrote:
> On 03/10/2014 06:14 PM, Sumit Bose wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 03:02:30PM +0100, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>>> Fair enough. I saw both complaints from potential consumers -- some
>>> developers were going "omg dbus is such a heavyweight desktop
technology,
>>> do I really need to use it" ? I realize 'hiding' dbus behind a
different
>>> name might be a little irrational, but so were their concerns in my
>>> opinion.
>> I think as long as well call it the D-Bus responder we should keep dbus
>> in the names. Otherwise we might get questions like 'How do I start the
>> InfoPipe responder?'.
> It is actually already confusing. We never use anything else than
> D-Bus responder, but the responder itself in Jakub's branch is
> called ifp.
That's because the original DBus responder from cca 2008 was called
InfoPipe, I simply reused the original name.
Are you proposing to call the responder simply dbus?
I think we can just start
using the work "infopipe" again.
_______________________________________________
sssd-devel mailing list
sssd-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel
--
Thank you,
Dmitri Pal
Sr. Engineering Manager for IdM portfolio
Red Hat Inc.
-------------------------------
Looking to carve out IT costs?
www.redhat.com/carveoutcosts/