Dbus-Broker 36 Released For This Fastest D-Bus Implementation

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Dbus-Broker 36 Released For This Fastest D-Bus Implementation

David Rheinsberg has released Dbus-Broker 36 as the newest version of this speedy, drop-in DBus implementation for Linux systems...

https://www.phoronix.com/news/Dbus-Broker-36-Released

[and.elf]

Have anyone implemented a dbus-interface for a new application? I really don't understand why choose it over, say, mqtt. Anyone?

[fallingcats]

Have anyone implemented a dbus-interface for a new application? I really don't understand why choose it over, say, mqtt. Anyone?

My understanding is that MQTT is something quite different and not well suited to local applications doing remote function calls with arguments and return values in a zeroconf kind of way.

[khancyr]

Yes I did. To control Modemmanager and networkmanager. D-Bus layer is very usefull to explose some part of your Linux system

[ssokolow]

Have anyone implemented a dbus-interface for a new application? I really don't understand why choose it over, say, mqtt. Anyone?

I haven't done anything like D-Bus activation, but exposing a simple interface like com.ssokolow.QuickTile is quite easy. The reason one would choose D-Bus over MQTT is the same reason that KDE applications expose their reusable components as KParts, or Windows application use COM for various things... it's the platform standard.

Hell, D-Bus grew out of a desire to unify KDE 3's DCOP and GNOME 2's use of CORBA onto a single desktop-wide RPC protocol so things like the qdbusviewer introspection GUI could come into being.

That's part of the reason both Qt and Gio (part of glib) include API wrappers for D-Bus.

TL;DR: As an application developer, it's the network effects that are important to you.

[discordian]

Have anyone implemented a dbus-interface for a new application? I really don't understand why choose it over, say, mqtt. Anyone?

D-Bus is using local sockets, for communication between processes on one machine. You can even pass filedescriptors/shared memory between processes that way.
mqtt is a network protocoll.

Those 2 are not comparable at all

[timofonic]

What about using Binder instead? What's so cool of dbus?

[ssokolow]

What about using Binder instead? What's so cool of dbus?

When Binder came into the upstream Linux kernel tree, one of the maintainers blogged about it. Apparently it's fundamentally insecure without the matching SELinux ruleset.

Aside from that, both have features that the other lacks. (eg. Binder lacks D-Bus's broadcast messages and socket activation while Binder's performance and response-cycle semantics make it suitable for certain situations D-Bus is not... just don't ask me what situations those are. It's been too long and it was before I started aggressively bookmarking anything I suspected would tickle my memory later.)

[intelfx]

What about using Binder instead? What's so cool of dbus?

Well, why won’t you answer an opposite question: what’s so cool of Binder? Why is there a need to use something “instead”?

[brent]

Is a "high-performance" D-Bus implementation even needed? It's not really used to move a lot of data around or for latency sensitive applications. It's a high-level control bus, after all. It's an ill fit for high traffic or sensitive applications basically by design.