[refpolicy] [PATCH/RFC 2/19]: patch set to update the git reference policy

[guido@trentalancia.com (Guido Trentalancia)]

Hello Martin !

On Thu, 03/02/2011 alle 00.18 +0000, Martin Orr wrote:
> On Mon 31 Jan 23:15:14 2011, Guido Trentalancia wrote:
> > The DBus send_msg issue is the probably the main change introduced by
> > the set of patches that I am proposing.
> >
> > The issue is very wide and needs careful approval. It's not limited to
> > this [2/19] patch/thread at all. It is mainly a style issue, but it's an
> > important one.
> >
> > In any case, [2/19] and [8/19] are perhaps the most relevant places
> > where you can provide a definite direction on this (in short, can we
> > really talk about an hypothetical DBus "chat" throughout all refpolicy
> > and model interfaces accordingly to such assumption when on the other
> > hand the elementary data-flow in DBus is constituted by a
> > uni-directional message called "signal" ?).
> 
> I think that it is often better to think about "chats".  Often one  
> process A (e.g. consolekit or setroubleshoot) provides a service which  
> many other processes B can use by sending a DBus message to A.  A only  
> sends messages to B after getting messages from B.
> 
> In this case, I think it is likely to be more maintainable if each  
> module B uses A_dbus_chat, instead of putting a big list of all the  
> possible B into module A.  I do not care strongly about it however.

Yes, it is possible to do it that way if the majority of people prefer
it like that.

Any other technical comment ? So far I have only applied some
improvements from Dominick Grift. If you think there is something else
to improve please let me know as I am waiting for further comments.

Thanks for your time !

Regards,

Guido