On Monday, 2014-01-06, 15:37:33, Jerome Leclanche wrote: > On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Kevin Krammer <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Monday, 2014-01-06, 01:25:58, Jerome Leclanche wrote: > >> There's a lot TBD still. For example: Do we require apps implementing > >> an intent to support every method of the intent? I don't think it's > >> necessary due to dbus introspection letting us figure out whether a > >> method is supported. > > > > If an intent has an associated D-Bus interface, then IMHO all methods > > should be available. > > > > E.g. if I am a contact editor and have an optional feature to take a > > contact picture from the camera, then I would check the intents cache for > > xdg.intents.Camera. > > If I find one (or the preferred one if there are more than on) I expect a > > call to xdg.intents.Camera.TakePicture to be available. > > > > I don't want to have to start each camera provider to do runtime > > introspection. > > > > Cheers, > > Kevin > > -- > > Kevin Krammer, KDE developer, xdg-utils developer > > KDE user support, developer mentoring > > > > _______________________________________________ > > xdg mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg > > You run the risk anyway though, as a new method might be officially > added later on to the intent (especially with non-freedesktop > namespaced intents).
Quoting Bastien Nocera: "D-Bus-style name. This allows namespacing and versioning." I mean, what is an intent good for if a service can claim to provide it but actually not do it? Cheers, Kevin -- Kevin Krammer, KDE developer, xdg-utils developer KDE user support, developer mentoring
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
