Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 9th Feb 2013 02:04 UTC, submitted by ac
Linux "Both of these articles allude to the fact that I'm working on putting the D-Bus protocol into the kernel, in order to help achieve these larger goals of proper IPC for applications. And I'd like to confirm that yes, this is true, but it's not going to be D-Bus like you know it today. Our goal (and I use 'goal' in a very rough term, I have 8 pages of scribbled notes describing what we want to try to implement here), is to provide a reliable multicast and point-to-point messaging system for the kernel, that will work quickly and securely. On top of this kernel feature, we will try to provide a 'libdbus' interface that allows existing D-Bus users to work without ever knowing the D-Bus daemon was replaced on their system."
Permalink for comment 551969
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
by butters on Sat 9th Feb 2013 03:05 UTC
Member since:

A real pub-sub multicast socket implementation in the kernel. This has been at the top of my feature wish list for a long time. Obviously D-Bus will be the first client, but libevent would be next, and then the Wayland devs are beginning to rethink their IPC protocol.

In the beginning, there was select and poll. Then there was epoll. But their days may be numbered. It should be obvious that the socket is the one true UNIX abstraction for IPC. This is the way it was always meant to be. We fork a bunch of small processes, each of which does one thing well, and hook them all together with read() and write().

But we need more flexibility in how we compose networks of communicating processes. We can't do everything with pipelines and the client-server pattern. Even a microkernel purist would agree that IPC should be provided by a point-to-point message bus in the kernel. Anything else we might want can be built on top.

Reply Score: 9