[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Duplicity-talk] Re: dbus patch
From: |
Dan Muresan |
Subject: |
Re: [Duplicity-talk] Re: dbus patch |
Date: |
Tue, 04 Nov 2008 20:35:57 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (X11/20080925) |
> From my perspective (targetting desktop users), 1M isn't bad, but Dan,
> you're coming at this from a tiny server perspective. Would 1M break
> the duplicity bank?
As you point out, it all depends on the perspective... I guess my "vote"
is against "desktop"-izing duplicity as a development direction...
Stepping back a bit, what would glib integration bring? Duplicity
doesn't seem like a very interactive type of application -- it seems
similar to ssh / scp / ssh-askpass, for example.
If we're talking merely about pausing / aborting operation based on
front-end requests, wouldn't SIGSTOP / SIGINT, or perhaps a very simple
"control socket" mechanism, do?
-- Dan
- [Duplicity-talk] dbus patch, Michael Terry, 2008/11/02
- [Duplicity-talk] Re: dbus patch, Michael Terry, 2008/11/02
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] Re: dbus patch, Dan Muresan, 2008/11/02
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] Re: dbus patch, Michael Terry, 2008/11/02
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] Re: dbus patch, Dan Muresan, 2008/11/02
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] Re: dbus patch, Michael Terry, 2008/11/04
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] Re: dbus patch,
Dan Muresan <=
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] Re: dbus patch, Michael Terry, 2008/11/04
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] Re: dbus patch, Dan Muresan, 2008/11/04
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] Re: dbus patch, Edgar Soldin, 2008/11/04
- [Duplicity-talk] asynchronous-uploads, Richard Scott, 2008/11/04
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] asynchronous-uploads, Peter Schuller, 2008/11/07
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] Re: dbus patch, Michael Terry, 2008/11/05
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] Re: dbus patch, Dan Muresan, 2008/11/06
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] Re: dbus patch, Michael Terry, 2008/11/06
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] Re: dbus patch, Dan Muresan, 2008/11/06
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] Re: dbus patch, Richard Scott, 2008/11/06