[SSSD] Design Discussion: Simple D-Bus API

Dmitri Pal dpal at redhat.com
Thu Mar 13 14:44:03 UTC 2014


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 at 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/






More information about the sssd-devel mailing list