On Sat, 2009-09-12 at 10:11 +0200, Sumit Bose wrote: > On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 05:46:24PM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: > > On Fri, 2009-09-11 at 17:10 +0200, Sumit Bose wrote: > > > Most of items are not mandatory at the protocol level. If e.g. the > > > remote host is not known to the client it is not sent to the server > > > and > > > the server complains if he really needs it, e.g. the user name. > > > > > > I haven't put a check like 'if cli_pid==0 do not send to the server' > > > because as getpid(2) says "These functions are always successful.". > > > > > > On the server side cli_pid is 0 if the client does not send a PID > > > item. > > > > > > I think the way it currently works is the way your are expecting it to > > > work. > > > > Will the unpacking function work is the client doesn't send the pid at > > all (ie it is an older client ?). > > Yes, it will work. This was one of the main ideas why I have changed the > original protocol some time ago. Every item has an identifier. So it is > always clear for the unpacking function what the next item will be. If > one item is missing, it is just left empty (NULL,0) on the server side.
Oh I know the items are recognized by our code, but I am not sure that dbus_message_get_args() is as forgiving. Or does it just stop getting args when it sees DBUS_TYPE_INVALID even if there are more in the actual message ? Simo. -- Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York _______________________________________________ sssd-devel mailing list sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel
