On Mon, 2014-08-25 at 08:32 +0200, Aleksander Zdyb wrote: > On 22.08.2014 20:16, Patrick Ohly wrote: > > What is currently proposed just makes the number of changes to > > dbus-daemon larger, with no practical advantage. Everyone is welcome to > > have a look at the work I started on dbus-daemon and verify that > > statement if you don't take my word for it. > > > > As Zofia listed most of advantages of v2 solution in her previous posts, > I would just politely ask, if we're working on async API for Cynara's > clients > or patching dbus-daemon?
You are designing an API whose primary purpose at this point is to be used in dbus-daemon. If there are other users of it, then feel free to get their feedback. You have mine and I don't have anything else technical to add, besides a small rant below. > If this is the point, then alright, we can release complicated and > error-prone API for our users just to make dbus-daemon maintainers' > life easier. Just to clarify, I'm not the dbus maintainer, neither upstream nor of the Tizen package. I just helped out because it seemed to be needed. <rant> You seem to think that it should be the D-Bus developer's job to adapt D-Bus to the Cynara API, not the other way around. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but D-Bus is the established project here which doesn't care about what Tizen does, while Cynara is the newcomer which will not work well without D-Bus support. D-Bus is in maintenance, Cynara under active development. So wouldn't it make sense to ensure that the combination works by adapting *Cynara* and minimizing changes to D-Bus? </rant> -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter. _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/dev
