Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] [PATCH V2] Add new extensible D-Bus signal

2020-02-12 Thread Simon Kelley
On 11/02/2020 12:28, Victorien Molle wrote: > Hi Simon, sorry for the late reply. > > Here are my answers: > > 1) This is because I prefer to work with integers and not strings. > I personnaly prefer to declare enums for each action and then perform > a boolean comparison instead of doing

Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] [PATCH V2] Add new extensible D-Bus signal

2020-02-11 Thread Victorien Molle
Hi Simon, sorry for the late reply. Here are my answers: 1) This is because I prefer to work with integers and not strings. I personnaly prefer to declare enums for each action and then perform a boolean comparison instead of doing strings comparison. But I can use action strings if you prefer.

Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] [PATCH V2] Add new extensible D-Bus signal

2020-01-26 Thread Simon Kelley
Sorry to keep pushing this back at you, but I looked in more detail and there are things that are not yet right. 1) Why is the action the internal arbitrary integer? Wouldn't it be better for this to be a string, deleted/added/updated or even the name of the earlier signals; DhcpLeaseAdded etc

[Dnsmasq-discuss] [PATCH V2] Add new extensible D-Bus signal

2020-01-23 Thread Victorien Molle
For our usage, we need to have more informations sent over D-Bus such as the interface name, the vendor class identifier and the lease expiration time. To achieve this, we add a new D-Bus signal "DhcpLeaseNotification" which exports the requested informations as a dictionnary. It also has the