[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: D-BUS versus GDOMAP (WINDOWS users please note)

From: Richard Frith-Macdonald
Subject: Re: D-BUS versus GDOMAP (WINDOWS users please note)
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 08:51:45 +0100

On 31 Aug 2004, at 08:04, Rogelio Serrano wrote:

I think DO is more like the libdbus layer not the message bus layer.
Yes, the encoding and transport part of DO (eg NSPortCoder and NSSocketPort) is conceptually similar to libdbus, While the nameserver part of DO is (very roughly) comparable to message bus, it's actually quite different.

Im not really interested in using it. We can instead create something similar to the dbus daemon.

Where I work, we have *long* had a daemon process on each machine which we used to launch and shut down processes to provide services. It's a very useful facility, and is the main strongpoint I see for the dbus daemon. In OpenStep/GNUstep the NSWorkspace class and services system should provide similar functionality, but at present only do so for the local host. It would be good if GNUstep provided a daemon which could implement autolaunch of service providing applications remotely in some secure way. Using the dbus daemon for this might be quite simple ... but then we would need to link with that extra external library. I'd be in favour of that if d-bus was a standard part of all major linux distributions and easily available for other unix implementations and ms-windows, but I don't see that being the case any time soon - so your idea of writing a lightweight implementation sounds better to me right now.

Can DO use unix domain sockets?

Yes ... but only on unix.  I'd like to see an equivalent for windows.

Im more intereseted in using the message bus daemon idea to emulate mac os x boot services. And on demand startup of system services. So I can simplify my init.app. its a mess now with boot script tracking and dependency tracking and system shutdown.

That sounds like a good idea. The main issue (after implementing basic functionality to start/stop services by name of course), is how to combine ease of use with security. While dbus provides a specific security protocol to authorise connections via a variety of mechanisms, this really rather misses the point. Passing authentication tokens and encrypting stuff is fairly straightforward (the GNUstep DO system can already do it) ... what's important is working out how to easily configure the processes to have the correct security tokens and enforce the security policies. We don't have any way to do that now, and d-bus wouldn't help.

IMO what would be good would be to write a proxy class to handle security issues over DO (a server would only vend these proxies rather than vending objects directly), and write easy to use gui and command line tools for configuring policy and security tokens for applications. The NSConnection class could then be trivially modified to check that, when setting a root object for the connection, the object was an instance of the security proxy class.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]