On Tue, 2008-08-19 at 18:04 +0100, Ross Burton wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-08-19 at 18:51 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> > On Sun, 2008-08-17 at 19:30 +0100, Ross Burton wrote:
> > IMHO the underlying problem is that Bonobo/ORBit/CORBA allow calls which
> > run for an unlimited amount of time whereas DBus doesn't. Therefore a
> > simple mapping of CORBA calls to synchronous DBus calls will always be
> > problematic.
> > 
> > Do you think that mapping all synchronous libebook/libecal calls to
> > asynchronous communication via DBus would be possible?
> 
> Any calls which can take longer than the DBus timeout and not be
> considered to have a) serious implementation errors or b) timed out
> remotely should be moved to method call -> signal pattern.
> 
> In the case of getChanges(), this is a local operation

Only in the file backend. If I remember the code correctly, then the
same DBus wrapper sits on top of all back ends, even those which for
entirely valid reasons (remote access) might require longer to implement
a certain operation.

Any assumptions by the DBus wrapper about how long operations are
allowed to take adds additional limitations which haven't existed so
far.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to delay a transition to DBus, but I'd
like to understand how the timing issues will be handled.

-- 
Bye, Patrick Ohly
--  
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.estamos.de/

_______________________________________________
Evolution-hackers mailing list
Evolution-hackers@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers

Reply via email to