DBus/QtDBus Concerns

[Thomas Zander]

On Thursday 13 July 2006 12:55, David Jarvie wrote:
> On Thursday 13 Jul 2006 10:31, Thomas Zander wrote:
> >On Thursday 13 July 2006 01:50, David Jarvie wrote:
> >> KAlarm and kalarmd need to interact via D-Bus. If some other
> >> application made certain D-Bus calls, alarms could be lost.
> >
> >Only if those applications were malicious. If you expect things to get
> >lost due to bugs, I suggest you take a long look at the interaction
> > you have via dbus since that may need some work ;)
>
> I'm thinking more in terms of people trying to do clever things with
> the "private" interface, which might mess things up.

Bugs have to be fixed; this has nothing to do with the transport medium.
Its like Windows saying it will only send emails to other Windows boxes 
since others might loose it. I won't even comment on how wrong that is.

> >What you are suggesting is to close the alarms modification to one
> > client only. I think this is fundamentally the wrong path to walk
> > down.
...
> The alarm daemon never adds, deletes or modifies alarms. Only KAlarm
> can do this, and it has public D-Bus functions for this purpose. 

So, you really are suggesting that nobody can create a KAlarm replacement 
that talks to the KAlarm daemon via dbus?

-- 
Thomas Zander
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20060713/5f673b8a/attachment.sig>