[Ksummit-2008-discuss] proposal for discussion..

[Marcel Holtmann]

Hi Peter,

>> we can't break the D-Bus message format. It is a specification and it
>> is fixed. Breaking it defeats all the purpose here. It is similar to
>> just change TCP.
>>
>
> It's not breaking, it's encapsulation.

I might have misunderstood, but he meant breaking in this case. If D- 
Bus can't be cleanly encapsulated into netlink, then we fix the D-Bus  
message format. And that one is not working out at all. D-Bus has a  
clearly specified binary wire format.

Anyway, I am seriously looking into using netlink as transport instead  
of a new address family, but there is more to it. Please keep in mind  
that in the D-Bus world we have to satisfy all bindings. Some of these  
bindings (Mono and Java) talk the D-Bus binary wire format directly  
instead of using the D-Bus low-level library. And the reason for that  
was just performance and simplicity. So natural moving an  
implementation detail from AF_UNIX to AF_DBUS where the wire format  
used on the socket is the same. It is simpler then having to deal with  
netlink details.

Regards

Marcel