On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Chris Kühl <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Patrick Ohly <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Mo, 2012-01-16 at 17:19 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote: >>> After also fixing the handling of asynchronous method >>> implementation in GDBus GIO, local sync works with it. >> >> After fixing some more regressions the D-Bus tests ran well >> (http://syncev.meego.com/2012-01-17-13-27_testing_gio-gdbus_dbus/), so I >> pushed all of the changes for gdbus C++ and fork/exec to the master >> branch. >> >> Chris, this is different from the previous fork/exec branch, so please >> do a "git rebase -i" and pick just your own changes when moving to the >> latest code. >> > > Ok, I'll take a look after I've pushed the changes I'm working on now > to get the full one-to-one dbus interface implemented.
I've renamed my branch to concurrent-sync-sessions and rebased onto master. I'm now going through and making required changes to get tests to work. Cheers, Chris > > Btw, similar to the way the code in syncevolution.cpp makes a dbus > method call then runs a mainloop till the call back has returned, I > had to create such a hack[1] but slightly differently. I've > implemented this by polling the dbusconnection's fd and on any fd > activity, do a context iteration, then seeing if the callback has > finished. Like I said it's a hack and I'll see how much mileage this > gets me but I'm not convinced it's any worse than what's being done in > syncevolution.cpp. Feel free to convince me, though. ;) > > Cheers, > Chris > > [1] > https://meego.gitorious.org/meego-middleware/syncevolution/commit/7623d38b047c86b68b1481db7c8620d9352e5d72 _______________________________________________ SyncEvolution mailing list [email protected] http://lists.syncevolution.org/listinfo/syncevolution
