Re: Issues with capability bits and meta-data in kdbus

[Michele Curti <michele.curti@gmail.com>]

Hi Havoc.

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 09:27:56AM -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
>
> If we say it isn't "general purpose" we could mean more than one thing -
>
>  - it's a complete system / batteries-included, with a defined
> protocol, vs. a "make your own protocol" kit
>  - it isn't especially appropriate as a cross-machine protocol,
> whether you mean within a cluster or across the internet
>  - it isn't portable in a very useful way (it kind of runs on
> windows/mac but isn't the native way of doing things there)
>
> On the other hand, it is "general purpose" in the sense that so many
> apps and services are using it for so many purposes already (i.e. it
> isn't tied to a particular kind of app or service).
>

Just out of curiosity, would you like to change something in dbus design,
if you didn't have to worry about ABI breaks and the like?

Thanks,
Michele