On 01/22/2013 10:32 PM, Neil Williams wrote: > On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 15:05:58 +0100 > Josselin Mouette <j...@debian.org> wrote: > >> Le mardi 22 janvier 2013 à 14:57 +0100, Svante Signell a écrit : >>> Worthwhile to read, definitely. >> Yet full of misinformation, like the idea that using D-Bus makes a >> service less scriptable (while the reality is a complete opposite), or >> that configuration files are less human-readable than shell scripts. > Hmm, scripts written in certain languages may have simple DBus > interfaces but it's by no means trivial to do asynchronous DBus > operations in a shell script. dbus-send does immediate calls but if > something is going to take longer than the usual DBus timeout, > responding to a DBus signal requires something other than shell. > > So, depending on what needs to be accomplished and how long it is going > to take, DBus does make services less scriptable simply because DBus > just won't sit there and wait (and block) for hours. Within what DBus > is meant to do, that's expected and correct. It just means that there > is more work involved than simply waiting for /usr/sbin/foo to return > in a single line shell script. > > Even with dbus-send, what may have been a 30 character one-line call in > shell becomes a 120 character complex call with quoting issues and > return-type-unmangling. > > It depends on the meaning of "scriptable" - with the strict meaning of > the kind of shell scripts to which sysadmins have become familiar, then > DBus really isn't scriptable except for v.simple operations.
Hi, I know very few about dbus. Could you quote/show/link to examples of what you are saying? Cheers, Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5100d2c9.8040...@debian.org
