Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 07:59:11 -0800 From: Hubbard Jordan <jkh@ixsystems.com> To: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: relaunchd: a portable clone of launchd Message-ID: <1D6BDF3C-28E7-40C4-A8A2-3A914A3CC76B@ixsystems.com> In-Reply-To: <20160112125948.GH3625@kib.kiev.ua> References: <5687D3A9.5050400@NTLWorld.com> <CAGfo=8kXzNVKy9gx0jkME4iRRyrgrsfpPnW3nYrZC0gysapPcg@mail.gmail.com> <817860B6-5D67-41A3-ADD7-9757C7E67C35@gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.20.1601081020270.34827@nog2.angryox.com> <07D83705-D89F-4125-B57B-920EDEBC8A85@rdsor.ro> <70975696-3E07-48B9-BFD1-3C2F51E715BB@icloud.com> <E85C42D4-963B-4632-9182-E591A80D1306@rdsor.ro> <76E6AF2A-917B-41EB-883A-C27AB2BB9F71@ixsystems.com> <20160112125948.GH3625@kib.kiev.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Jan 12, 2016, at 4:59 AM, Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> = wrote: >=20 > I highly recommend to Google for "Mach IPC sucks" if reader is really = interested. And here we return to the usual trap=E2=80=A6 =E2=80=9CMach IPC sucks!=E2=80=9D =E2=80=9COK. What do you propose that will address all of the same = concerns?=E2=80=9D =E2=80=9Cdbus!=E2=80=9D =E2=80=9C*Sigh*. You haven=E2=80=99t even looked at the two = technologies in any depth, have you? Go read the dbus wikipedia page, = at least! Unix domain sockets underneath, no kernel<->userland = communication path, no trusted IPC mechanism, no support for large = messages=E2=80=A6=E2=80=9D =E2=80=9COK, so something new!! We should totally create an IPC for the = New Millennium!=E2=80=9D =E2=80=9CThat would be you then? Where=E2=80=99s your white paper? = Where=E2=80=99s your reference implementation?=E2=80=9D <crickets> Sorry. Been there, had this debate, and while it=E2=80=99s always = extremely easy to fling poop at an existing mechanism, it turns out = it=E2=80=99s so much harder to actually *create an alternative* that = this kind of discussion only serves to throw cold water on evolution = (=E2=80=9Cthe perfect being the enemy of the good enough=E2=80=9D) and = the end-result is that evolution does not occur. I also already covered how it=E2=80=99s very easy to layer something = like XPC *on top* of Mach IPC such that you, the programmer, need never = be exposed to the Mach IPC APIs (but still get to leverage the internal = capabilities I=E2=80=99ve already covered). Sorry, Konstantin, but yours is a non-argument. - Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1D6BDF3C-28E7-40C4-A8A2-3A914A3CC76B>