On 30 March 2011 16:30, Phillip Susi <ps...@cfl.rr.com> wrote: > If I am reading this correctly, it looks like upower provides a little > client library to wrap the dbus calls, and your patch is modifying that. > In my patch I just modified the dbus interface and patched g-p-m to use > dbus directly. Why have the shim instead?
The shim library was only really useful before we had GDBus, now it's a little redundant. >> I'm still not sure if it's a sensible thing to change the public DBus >> API at this stage, as other things are using the existing signals >> (notably, NetworkManager). David, Kay, any advice? > > Before you said: > >> I think breaking API now is okay. You have to define a >> I_KNOW_THE_API_IS_UNSTABLE define to use upower now anyway. > > Change your mind? Perhaps. I'm not super keen on changing an interface used by loads of projects. I think a new signal name might be better. I've not made up my mind yet to be honest. > Also it looks like g-p-m pokes nm on suspend/resume. > Does nm also directly monitor the upower signals? If so, that seems to > be a duplication of work. I think we dropped the NM pokage in g-p-m master, no? Richard. _______________________________________________ devkit-devel mailing list devkit-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/devkit-devel
