Recommend zbus and discourage gio for D-Bus

[zeenix]

It has happened a few times already that people come to me (or zbus matrix channel) and say that what a great pleasure it was for them to write their D-Bus code using zbus after suffering through a lot of pain while trying to do the same with gio-rs. While I'm sure gio-rs' can be improved, I doubt it can get on par with zbus w/o extensive changes (if it's possible even).

So I recommend we help people avoid the pain and get them straight to zbus through documentation. I can try to cook a PR for this but I'll need pointers on where to add such docs.

[sdroege]

Getting convenience close to zbus should be possible but it would require to put a lot of effort into that, and basically replicate (parts of) zbus. Neither of us two is going to do that, and the only reason why I merged the current gdbus bindings is because it was apparently useful for some people :)

[bilelmoussaoui]

The gdbus API has still use cases when interacting with gobject based libraries that wraps a dbus API. We can't make those libraries use zbus from rust without rewriting them from scratch. So I don't see anything actionable here personally.

[zeenix]

The gdbus API has still use cases when interacting with gobject based libraries that wraps a dbus API. We can't make those libraries use zbus from rust without rewriting them from scratch.

Sure. That's why the API should still exist and be supported.

So I don't see anything actionable here personally.

Not everyone is using gdbus binding because of the integration. Many people (like the someone on zbus matrix channel today) use it because they're already using gio-rs in their code anyway so it's natural to reuse gio-rs for dbus as well. We need docs to nudge these folks to use zbus instead.

[bilelmoussaoui]

Patches are welcome.