xml-rpc?

[Scott James Remnant]

On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 19:53 +0100, martin f krafft wrote:

> Dear Scott,
> 
Hey Martin, sorry it took so long to get back to you on this; I suffered
from that ancient problem where once a mail has been unread in your
INBOX for more than a week or so, it's very difficult to ever get around
to reading or replying to it.

> I am hijacking a discussion from upstart-devel at lists.ubuntu.com,
> which found its way to netconf-devel thanks to Thomas Hood.
> 
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/netconf-devel/2007-October/000198.html
> 
> You say that you're considering/using dbus for upstart's socket
> comms.
> 
That's correct; in fact, it's pretty much a decision at this point with
some napkin implementations that haven't yet found their way into trunk.

> > Upstart will maintain its own socket (probably with the same name), the
> > only difference is when you connect to it, you talk D-BUS rather than
> > talking a custom IPC protocol.
> 
> I'd like to do the same, not because I like dbus, but because
> I don't need to be reinventing the wheel. However, using either
> xml-rpc or dbus requires dependencies,
> 
Sure; using any existing library will make a dependency on that library

>  and even though you claim
> > libs can be statically linked; files under /usr are only necessary for
> > connecting to the system bus
> 
> you know that this is not an option for Debian since it's a security
> nightmare, at least not for netconf (which isn't quite as central as
> upstart).
> 
that was largely directed at the embedded group who (ironically) think
shared libraries make their system larger.

I would imagine Debian would simply use the existing library packages,
perhaps modified so that the library is in /lib if necessary.

Implementing your own IPC system is more of a security nightmare :-)

> So linking would have to be dynamic, but if netconf were ever to
> enter the base system, it should have minimal dependencies, really.
> I am thus a bit unsure. I would like to use dbus or xml-rpc, but
> I am not sure if it's a good idea.
> 
I thought base wasn't bounded?  The only bounding piece of Debian I know
of is Essential, which is defined simply as the dependencies of
dpkg/apt.

> I am interested in learning from you how you went on. If you would
> spare a minute to give us a short overview of how you approached it,
> I'd be delighted.
> 
Sure, what would you like to know?

Scott
-- 
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen?  Are you going round the twist?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/netconf-devel/attachments/20080207/4301c739/attachment.pgp