On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 02:05:56PM -0700, Bastien Nocera wrote: > On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 10:46 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 09:05:07AM -0700, Bastien Nocera wrote: > > > On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 08:44 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > > > > > > > What use is a command line tool that has to talk to a whole bunch of > > > > > daemons etc.? > > > > > > > > The current implementation doesn't talk to deamons. The hostip > > > > provider within GeoClue and it will just trigger a URL get. If > > > > desktops start implementing a master server though then the query > > > > would simply be a cached response. > > > > > > Note that this error carries on in the mail. There is a master provider > > > for Geoclue that can make use of whatever providers are available, but > > > it's not in too good a shape. > > > > I see, can you elaborate on that a little? > > See the bugzillas filed against Geoclue, most of them are due to bugs in > the Geoclue master provider. > > > > I'd rather somebody started fixing the Geoclue master provider rather > > > than relying on a particular service, especially when the D-Bus API for > > > the providers themselves is something we don't want to support in the > > > longer term. > > > > Would the master provider not use Dbus for gypsy, for example? > > No, I'm talking about what's exported by the providers. I don't really > care if they talk to other parts of the system using D-Bus though. I'm > talking about link 2) here. > > [App] <-1-> [Geoclue master] <-2-> [Gypsy provider] <-3-> [Gypsy daemon]
Sorry I do not follow yet. Is the idea that you would prefer if client applications would never talk to providers directly and instead always used the master provider? Luis _______________________________________________ GeoClue mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/geoclue
