On Mi, 2011-12-14 at 13:27 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote: > On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Patrick Ohly <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mo, 2011-12-05 at 12:12 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote: > >> I plan to do this work in 3 steps: > >> > >> 1) The first step, which I've started, is to decouple the session and > >> server from each other and also modify objects that require both the > >> session and server objects as needed. Once this is done the server > >> should function as it does now and all tests should pass in order to > >> move on to step 2. > >> 2) Move session into separate binary using a one-to-one dbus > >> connection for communicating between the 2 processes. At this stage > >> only one session is run at a time and all tests should pass as before. > > > > I hate to interrupt your ongoing work, but can we reverse the steps so > > that we first introduce the helper executable and a way to start it, > > including the direct D-Bus communication with it? > > > > Ok, I'm looking into this. The original plan was that Step 1 was a > dependency of Step 2 but I've been reconsidering my approach. I'll > look into what you're asking and get back to you soon.
I can also do that part myself, if you give me some pointers to relevant technical documentation. I was looking for information on bootstrapping a D-Bus connection over a pair of connected file descriptors, without much luck. -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter. _______________________________________________ SyncEvolution mailing list [email protected] http://lists.syncevolution.org/listinfo/syncevolution
