From: jre <jre...@us...> - 2011-04-21 17:23:01
|
On 04/21/2011 07:04 PM, Jim wrote: > I also have an idea about the dbus daemon and I want to hear your > opinions. From what I understand we only need DBus for the GUI so why > not abandon the low level API and use the Qt D-Bus bindings? If we can > add an option to compile pgld whithout the dbus component (for people > using pgld on routers etc) then I believe that we can quickly have a > working implementation which will be easy to maintain and improve in the > future. The only downside is that if for some reason we need dbus for > something else in the future, people who don't/can't have Qt will be > excluded from those features. I had no look at the dbus implementation yet ... We definitely should use the Qt bindings in pgl-gui. But I guess it is possible/necessary to use other bindings (IIRC they exist both for C, and for the shell) in pgld and pglcmd. In the long run we also /might/ use dbus for pgld <-> pglcmd communication, but we don't have to worry about that now. It was possible to compile nfblock without dbus support. We definitely need to keep that option. (The Makefile already supports it.) |