4 ms·
No. It means everything is on-wire essentially the same as it would be in memory. Read the spec: http://dbus.freedesktop.org/doc/dbus-specification.html http://
by hp 12y ago
No. It means everything is on-wire essentially the same as it would be in memory. Read the spec: http://dbus.freedesktop.org/doc/dbus-specification.html http://dbus.freedesktop.org/doc/dbus-specification.html
This article is essentially "I didn't understand something after spending 15 minutes (or so) on it, and here are my criticisms of how I speculate this might work."
You know, fair enough. But if you as the reader want actual knowledge you can read the docs and code yourself and spend more than 15 minutes (or however long it was, but not long enough to have accurate info for sure).
There are hundreds of people and packages using dbus after many similar technologies were tried and didn't catch on. A curious person might ask why.
- brainsalad 12y agoIt's ironic that you reject the validity of the criticisms without investigating their correctness. For instance: "It isn't ASCII only, and I don't even see where the author of this article got that idea. Read the spec instead of the article and you'll learn more: http://dbus.freedesktop.org/doc/dbus-specification.html" http://dbus.freedesktop.org/doc/dbus-specification.html" And it was immediately pointed out to you that if YOU read the documentation, you would have seen that it does state: "A nul byte in any context other than the initial byte is an error; the protocol is ASCII-only." You could not possibly be more lazy, misinformed, offensive, and just wrong in every way.
- hp 12y agoI created dbus and wrote the original spec. There is a nul byte first because some platforms require that to send credentials. Then a plain text protocol modeled on SASL for authentication. After that the binary message protocol begins. Sorry if others could have done it better, but they didn't, and many tried. My way works and exists.
- brainsalad 12y agoYour way is a curse many go to great lengths to avoid. You are damaging the community and making our lives harder. Please stop.
- hp 12y agoI did stop, many years ago, in part because I was tired of this sort of thread. People who don't know the requirements and don't bother to learn anything go on ill-informed rants about other people's work. Hey, it's no longer officially my problem. But the people who are still working on improving the software still don't deserve the abuse.
- brainsalad 12y agoIf only the folks at Redhat were improving things and not playing your sorts of passive-aggressive political games...
- felixgallo 12y agoThank you for stopping.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- emcrazyone 12y agothey go on these rants because the documentation is so dam poor. The OP lists blatant contradictions. Your response further up would be quite helpful in the code and/or in the documentation. I work in the embedded space and often read data sheets with similar contradictions or errors. It's almost like the documentation has to be as good as the code and idea. What good is the best mouse trap if no one knows how to use it. Poor documentation is a pet peeve of mine too and it's the poorly documented DBUS stuff is why I never bothered to even try to learn more about it.
- mwcampbell 12y ago> I did stop, many years ago, in part because I was tired of this sort of thread. Reading this makes me sad. So this is why we can't have nice things in free software for end users! I, for one, will try to remember to stop and think before criticizing any free software project from now on.
- 12y ago
- ownagefool 12y agoIt's possible that others ways exist and are better but which simply haven't caught on. That said, they're not much use if nobody it using them and I and many others are thankful to you for your contribution.
- guipsp 12y agoI think DBus is a great technology, and that this article is terrible. What I was saying is that "binary format" really doesn't mean anything.