Re: impending gdbus merge

Hey, On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 7:52 AM, Christian Persch wrote: >> Sure, if it turns out we need such variants we can always add them > > I actually used g_bus_watch_name() in a situation where I already > had a GDBusConnection* available, so being able to pass it directly > instead of by type woul

Re: impending gdbus merge

Hi; Am Wed, 12 May 2010 13:22:34 -0400 schrieb David Zeuthen : > On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Christian Persch > > - g_bus_own_name has a _on_connection variant that directly takes a > >  GDBusConnection*; maybe g_bus_watch_name and g_bus_watch_proxy > >  shoule also have such a variant. > >

Re: impending gdbus merge

Hey, On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Christian Persch wrote: > Hi; > > I have just a few remarks/questions after having ported a couple of > things to gdbus, and having looked at the API: Cool, thanks for doing this! > - g_bus_own_name has a _on_connection variant that directly takes a >  GDBu

Re: impending gdbus merge

Hi; I have just a few remarks/questions after having ported a couple of things to gdbus, and having looked at the API: - g_bus_own_name has a _on_connection variant that directly takes a GDBusConnection*; maybe g_bus_watch_name and g_bus_watch_proxy shoule also have such a variant. - timeout

Re: impending gdbus merge

On Mon, 2010-05-10 at 12:50 -0400, David Zeuthen wrote: > Hey, > > On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen > wrote: > > On Mon, 2010-05-10 at 12:28 -0400, David Zeuthen wrote: > >> Hey, > >> > >> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen > >> wrote: > >> > I

Re: impending gdbus merge

Hey, On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen wrote: > On Mon, 2010-05-10 at 12:28 -0400, David Zeuthen wrote: >> Hey, >> >> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen >> wrote: >> > I have two questions though. Firstly; why is there no API for installing >> >

Re: impending gdbus merge

On Mon, 2010-05-10 at 12:28 -0400, David Zeuthen wrote: > Hey, > > On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen > wrote: > > I have two questions though. Firstly; why is there no API for installing > > and removing generic match rules? They seem like such a fundamental > > thing in

Re: impending gdbus merge

Hey, On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen wrote: > I have two questions though. Firstly; why is there no API for installing > and removing generic match rules? They seem like such a fundamental > thing in DBus, and there alreay is API for installing filter funcs > anyway. O

Re: impending gdbus merge

Hey, On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:37 PM, Shaun McCance wrote: > Some initial thoughts, after partially porting Yelp: > > * I think it's odd that this reuses GIOErrorEnum. It uses > values like G_IO_ERROR_CLOSED and G_IO_ERROR_EXISTS. The > documentation for these distinctly refers to files. Using > a

Re: impending gdbus merge

On Thu, 6 May 2010 14:06:40 -0400, Matthias Clasen > Hey, > > I thought I should let everybody know that we are getting very close > to merging gdbus into GLib. David has created a gdbus-merge branch > where we'll stage things before the final merge to master. So, if you > haven't payed attention

Re: impending gdbus merge

On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 4:42 AM, Daniel Macks wrote: > On Thu, 2010-05-06 at 14:06 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote: >> >> I thought I should let everybody know that we are getting very close >> to merging gdbus into GLib. David has created a gdbus-merge branch >> where we'll stage things before the fi

Re: impending gdbus merge

On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 6:20 AM, Xan Lopez wrote: > On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 12:16 PM, Xan Lopez wrote: >> >> Problem on my side (the header include seems correctly protected and >> all, although of course I'm on Linux... so not sure what's going on) >> or something wrong in glib? > > FWIW from grep

Re: impending gdbus merge

On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 12:16 PM, Xan Lopez wrote: > > Problem on my side (the header include seems correctly protected and > all, although of course I'm on Linux... so not sure what's going on) > or something wrong in glib? FWIW from grepping the tree it would seem to get the right include path y

Re: impending gdbus merge

On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 8:06 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote: > Hey, > > I thought I should let everybody know that we are getting very close > to merging gdbus into GLib. David has created a gdbus-merge branch > where we'll stage things before the final merge to master. So, if you > haven't payed attent

Re: impending gdbus merge

On Thu, 2010-05-06 at 14:06 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote: > > I thought I should let everybody know that we are getting very close > to merging gdbus into GLib. David has created a gdbus-merge branch > where we'll stage things before the final merge to master. So, if you > haven't payed attention

Re: impending gdbus merge

On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:37 PM, Shaun McCance wrote: > On Thu, 2010-05-06 at 14:06 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote: >> Hey, >> >> I thought I should let everybody know that we are getting very close >> to merging gdbus into GLib. David has created a gdbus-merge branch >> where we'll stage things befo

Re: impending gdbus merge

On Thu, 2010-05-06 at 14:06 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote: > Hey, > > I thought I should let everybody know that we are getting very close > to merging gdbus into GLib. David has created a gdbus-merge branch > where we'll stage things before the final merge to master. So, if you > haven't payed att

Re: impending gdbus merge

Hey Simon, On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 6:31 AM, Simon McVittie wrote: > On Thu, 06 May 2010 at 16:36:45 -0400, David Zeuthen wrote: >> Btw, for what it's worth, the way the symbol/struct names are set up >> right now is like this: GDBus*/g_dbus_* refers to routines that don't >> care whether the conne

Re: impending gdbus merge

On Thu, 06 May 2010 at 16:36:45 -0400, David Zeuthen wrote: > Btw, for what it's worth, the way the symbol/struct names are set up > right now is like this: GDBus*/g_dbus_* refers to routines that don't > care whether the connection is to a message bus, while GBus*/g_bus_* > refers to routines wher

Re: impending gdbus merge

Hi again, Btw, for what it's worth, the way the symbol/struct names are set up right now is like this: GDBus*/g_dbus_* refers to routines that don't care whether the connection is to a message bus, while GBus*/g_bus_* refers to routines where the connection is known to be to a message bus. That's

Re: impending gdbus merge

Hey, On Thu, 2010-05-06 at 22:11 +0200, Torsten Schoenfeld wrote: > As far as I can see from the headers, there seem to be two new > namespaces: GDBus/g_dbus_ and GBus/g_bus_. Judging from > , GDBus seems to > be the low-level API, while GB

Re: impending gdbus merge

As far as I can see from the headers, there seem to be two new namespaces: GDBus/g_dbus_ and GBus/g_bus_. Judging from , GDBus seems to be the low-level API, while GBus is convenience API. But it seems that GBus is still DBus-specific, so

impending gdbus merge

Hey, I thought I should let everybody know that we are getting very close to merging gdbus into GLib. David has created a gdbus-merge branch where we'll stage things before the final merge to master. So, if you haven't payed attention to gdbus yet, or haven't looked at it in a while, gdbus-merge i