Hi, On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 4:59 AM, Philip Van Hoof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It's not necessary to create a new object on the bus for this, in my > opinion. The handle is just for the unqueue, with an object on the bus > the application developer would have to track proxies to it to use the > unqueue operation. That sounds overkill to me. The Queue also has a > handle_to_unqueue, what should I pass here? The mktemp-style random > string? Right now both `handle_to_unqueue` and the `Unqueue` operation > share the same kind of things that get passed (a simple handle). > > Not sure about this ...
If the only operation on handle is unqueue, then an object is possibly overkill, matter of taste I guess. But if you started adding additional operations it would start to be a little ugly, so if handle is OK with just unqueue, I'd at least try to be pretty sure there won't be more operations. > org.freedesktop.PowerManagement.BlackLight > org.freedesktop.PowerManagement.BlackLight.GetBrightness () > org.freedesktop.PowerManagement.BlackLight.SetBrightness () This is kinda weird (an "inner interface") - think about how it would map to Java or C++ or even GObject. At the very least the mapping would involve a lot of typing, because you can't do a "using" with an interface in the same way you can with a package or namespace, and in GObject this is going to be a very long function name. Havoc _______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
