Code review comment for lp://staging/~ted/libindicator/upstart-no-dbus

On Wed, 2013-05-29 at 15:51 +0000, Lars Uebernickel wrote:

> I think having the panel (or anything in the session) being aware of
> the init daemon is inside-out architecture.

It's not the init daemon in this case. It's the session manager. It's
like being aware that there is a gnome-session.

> Will every service now have to ship with an upstart script in addition
> to the dbus service file it already has? That adds an unnecessary
> dependency, and makes it harder to write services.

No, there'll be no reason to ship a dbus service file.

> Why don't we make upstart aware of dbus activation? (I believe I heard
> it already is, or will be in the near future?) This will bring us all
> the benefits of upstart managing the services without any extra work.
>
> Are there any advantages to using upstart explicitly?

There was a patch for that, it was rejected upstream, we may put it back
in Ubuntu. But, even with that using Upstart jobs is better for
indicators. It keeps the log files in a single file that is
automatically picked up by apport and attached to bugs. Upstart can
restart the service including retry intervals. And for developers they
can manage when the service stops and starts with external tools that
already exist.