On Thursday 22 March 2007 19:25 +0100, Thiago Macieira wrote: > Kevin Krammer wrote: > >> Any library designed to be used by other languages. > > > >Hmm, I thought that the main idea in D-Bus is to always use bindings. > > True, but many projects feel they must provide a C library that wraps the > D-Bus calls. They don't bind to the application, though and don't use a > binding.
I know and I admit that it is a good use case for applications where this is the only use of D-Bus. However, as someone else mentioned in this thread, such a wrapper library can then opt to cache the "ugly" dictionary in some context/handle and provide easy primitive accessors. I agree with Havoc that this issue has gotten more attention in this thread than necessary, but I was quite irritated that the use case of a convenience wrapper would have such strong influence on the actual D-Bus API. Bitfields are a low level method of implementing sets of booleans and therefore might not be a very good choice in a high level abstraction like a D-Bus interface. As a bad example see Microsoft's usage of bitfields in their XML office document format. Cheers, Kevin -- Kevin Krammer, KDE developer, xdg-utils developer KDE user support, developer mentoring
pgpnvF8XyknDS.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
