Bug 84289

(In reply to comment #0)
> I think that it is worth to include accessibility as one of the well know
> message bus.

I had assumed that the accessibility bus is a private implementation detail of AT-SPI. Is this the case, or is it designed to be an API that can be relied on, or what?

> Unless, at-spi2 is using wront that <type></type> option.

Maybe. See the linked AT-SPI bug.

The options seem to be:

* document the accessibility bus in the D-Bus Specification, making it
  into a third well-known bus

* document somewhere (dbus-daemon man page?) that "accessibility" is
  reserved for AT-SPI

* omit the <type> for AT-SPI

dbus/doc is a trap for the unwary, referring to a long-dead project to write an IDL or documentation format for D-Bus APIs, and the D-Bus maintainers don't get its bugmail. Reassigning to dbus/core which is the home of everything in dbus.git.

(I asked the fd.o sysadmins to fix this some time ago.)

(In reply to Simon McVittie from comment #1)
> The options seem to be:
> 
> * document the accessibility bus in the D-Bus Specification, making it
>   into a third well-known bus
> 
> * document somewhere (dbus-daemon man page?) that "accessibility" is
>   reserved for AT-SPI
> 
> * omit the <type> for AT-SPI

So which of these do you want?

If it doesn't break anything, I would personally suggest omitting the <type>, which would be an at-spi patch (in which case this bug can be closed NOTABUG).

However, on https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=722738 Magdalen Berns wrote "I went ahead and tested removing <type> but that seemed to break
guis, so it's a no go". I'd be curious to hear what breakage it caused and why. On the GNOME bug I wrote:

> The only practical effects of the <type> at the moment are:
>
> * activated services get DBUS_STARTER_BUS_TYPE=accessibility in their
>   environment
>
> * if the type is exactly "system" or "session", it shows up in syslog
>   message prefixes

but perhaps I missed some other practical effect?

If there is a reason to prefer one of the first two options, please describe that reason in the commit message of a suitable patch for dbus :-)

(In reply to Simon McVittie from comment #3)
> (In reply to Simon McVittie from comment #1)
> > The options seem to be:
> > 
> > * document the accessibility bus in the D-Bus Specification, making it
> >   into a third well-known bus
> > 
> > * document somewhere (dbus-daemon man page?) that "accessibility" is
> >   reserved for AT-SPI
> > 
> > * omit the <type> for AT-SPI
> 
> So which of these do you want?
> 
> If it doesn't break anything, I would personally suggest omitting the
> <type>, which would be an at-spi patch (in which case this bug can be closed
> NOTABUG).
> 
> However, on https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=722738 Magdalen Berns
> wrote "I went ahead and tested removing <type> but that seemed to break
> guis, so it's a no go". I'd be curious to hear what breakage it caused and
> why. On the GNOME bug I wrote:
> 
> > The only practical effects of the <type> at the moment are:
> >
> > * activated services get DBUS_STARTER_BUS_TYPE=accessibility in their
> >   environment
> >
> > * if the type is exactly "system" or "session", it shows up in syslog
> >   message prefixes
> 
> but perhaps I missed some other practical effect?
> 
> If there is a reason to prefer one of the first two options, please describe
> that reason in the commit message of a suitable patch for dbus :-)

I noticed that I couldn't open graphical applications. However I am not certain I checked this thoroughly enough to say with absolute certainty this was the result of removing type. To be sure, I will have another look and confirm the state of things just after doing that.

-- GitLab Migration Automatic Message --

This bug has been migrated to freedesktop.org's GitLab instance and has been closed from further activity.

You can subscribe and participate further through the new bug through this link to our GitLab instance: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/dbus/dbus/issues/113.