April 24, 2017 5:49 PM, "Dan Williams" <d...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Mon, 2017-04-24 at 16:50 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: >> On Fri, 21.04.17 13:22, David Herrmann (dh.herrm...@gmail.com) wrote: >> >>>>> Anyway, gdbus bugs aside, it seems that the interfaces >>>>> reported by >>>>> sd-bus should match what gdbus does? (assuming, of course, >>>>> that gdbus >>>>> can be considered the "reference" implementation). >>>> >>>> Does the appended patch fix your issue? >>>> (line-breaks might be screwed, sorry) >>> >>> Haven't tried it yet, but just from reading the patch...it seems >>> to do >>> the opposite of what I'd expect? I.e. add *more* interfaces? >> >> This change makes sure all objects have the built-in interfaces >> reported at all times. The GetManagedObjects() call didn't report >> them >> so far. >> >> Note that we really better report all interfaces an object >> supports. I >> don't know why glib does not do this, but I think it should. >> >> Yeah, I#d agree with that. I think we should provide complete >> information, and that means including built-in interfaces in all our >> messages, in particular as some of them are optional. It appears to >> me, that gdbus should be changed here, not sd-bus... > > It's not clear that the GNOME side was implemented correctly yet. > Would be nice to see the sample code. > > Dan
My GNOME-based client was based on the gdbus-example-objectmanager-client.c so I hope it's correct, but sure, I'll try to pare down the GNOME/gdbus-based client code and the (sd-bus based) server code to two simple test cases and provide those later this week. Regards, David _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel