linuxaudio.org

--=-=-=

Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Bob Ham  writes:
> On Tue, 2009-12-22 at 23:21 +0200, Nedko Arnaudov wrote:

quoted text
>> Hi Bob,

>>=20

>> thanks for commenting on LADI stuff

>>=20

>> > The huge, major weak point that would prevent me from investing myself

>> > in LADI is the use of D-Bus which requires an extra, external layer in

>> > order to perform routing between objects on different buses.  See my

>> > previous mail on the subject here:

>> >

>> >   http://lalists.stanford.edu/lad/2009/11/0350.html

>> >

>> >>From what Nedko has said on IRC, I believe LADISH has such a layer.

>>=20

>> D-Bus *can* span over multiple hosts.

>

> The main issue isn't whether D-Bus clients can connect to buses on a

> different host.  The main issue is whether D-Bus clients connected to

> one bus can send messages to objects on a different bus.

Applications can connect to multiple buses. Even applications that don't

interract with remote machines do it. There are two standard local

buses, the session bus and the system bus. Here is a screenshot of a

dbus application called d-feet that shows two buses connected:
http://www.j5live.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/d-feet-016-execute.png
> I was actually labouring under the impression that D-Bus as-is could

quoted text
> cope with connecting to remote hosts because it uses sockets.  That this

> isn't the case is, in fact *another* problem with D-Bus.

>

> D-Bus clients can't send messages to objects on remote buses.  As-is,

> they can't even connect to buses on remote hosts.  Shocking.

I already replied to this:
http://lalists.stanford.edu/lad/2009/12/0296.html
=2D-=20

Nedko Arnaudov 
--=-=-=

Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFLMf7J6bb4v94XFrARAoR1AJ9UpQCBsxs322i6Bkn1gMj4cDKcNQCgh4Id

zNR7Papn3TCaiqHpp5tjY3Y=

=X9p2

-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-=-=--