2012/3/20 Patrick Ohly <[email protected]>:
> On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 12:21 +0100, Krzesimir Nowak wrote:
>> 2012/3/20 Patrick Ohly <[email protected]>:
>> > On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 11:46 +0100, Krzesimir Nowak wrote:
>> >> [ERROR syncevo-dbus-helper 00:00:00] sending message to child failed:
>> >> org.freedesktop.DBus.Error.UnknownMethod: No such interface
>> >> `org.syncevolution.localtransport.child' on object at path /
>> >>
>> >> Looks like something is racy.
>> >
>> > Probably the same issue as for
>> > syncevo-dbus-server<->syncevo-dbus-helper, but now between
>> > syncevo-dbus-helper<->syncevo-local-sync. See my email about not always
>> > using delayed message processing in ForkExec - syncevo-local-sync still
>> > starts processing right away, because its call to ForkExec was not
>> > updated yet.
>> >
>> > In my current work branch I have merged your ForkExec patch without the
>> > "delayed = false" parameter.
>>
>> Ah, right. I thought that you already did that for
>> concurrent-sync-pohly-delayed-dbus upon which my work is based.
>>
>> I am now wondering if I should now try moving some common code from
>> session resource and connection resource to base class.
>
> Please stop for now. You'll end up duplicating work.

I have not begin that even. :) Is there something else you want to be
done by me in this area?

>>  I read that
>> you are trying to move connection stuff to server and that would end
>> with not using sync-helper for it, that is - connection resource
>> itself would disappear I think.
>
> Exactly. Connection and AutoSyncManager depend on common state
> information (presence, session history). That state information should
> stay in the syncevo-dbus-server together with the main logic in these
> classes, to avoid constantly calling out to some helper.
>
> --
> 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

Reply via email to