Rethinking the D-Bus Message Bus

Re:Rethinking the D-Bus Message Bus by transpute on Wednesday August 23, 2017 @02:51PM (#15084088)

Since QNX is proprietary, QNX messaging is likely patent encumbered.

What's a good open alternative, or starting point for new innovation, given current investments in microservice architecture?

  - ZeroMQ (and nanomsg)
  - gRPC (Google)
  - Apache Thrift (Facebook)
  - Finagle (Twitter)
  - L4/seL4 IPC

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rethinking the D-Bus Message Bus by sbierwagen on Wednesday August 23, 2017 @03:21PM (#15084301)

Remember, patents don't last forever. The first release of QNX was 35 years ago. Patents only last 20 years.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rethinking the D-Bus Message Bus by sametmax on Wednesday August 23, 2017 @04:59PM (#15085076)

The wamp protocol is interesting imo. It's independant a serialisation and transport despite the fact it uses websocket + json by default. It does routed rpc and pub/sub out of the box. But no low level router yet.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rethinking the D-Bus Message Bus by marqis on Wednesday August 23, 2017 @05:37PM (#15085413)

Check out crossbar.io, it's a broker from the authors of wamp.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rethinking the D-Bus Message Bus by AceJohnny2 on Wednesday August 23, 2017 @03:18PM (#15084284)

> Since QNX is proprietary, QNX messaging is likely patent encumbered.

Not necessarily. QNX messaging is old enough that patents related to the interface may have expired.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rethinking the D-Bus Message Bus by transpute on Wednesday August 23, 2017 @04:21PM (#15084708)

Here is one from 2005: https://www.google.com/patents/US20060182137

"An asynchronous message passing mechanism that allows for multiple messages to be batched for delivery between processes, while allowing for full memory protection during data transfers and a lockless mechanism for speeding up queue operation and queuing and delivering messages simultaneously."

Maybe there are older patents that have expired?

[ Parent | on HN ]