So if we have 10 clients monitoring the blacklist the daemon it will
result in 10 GetTemplates() calls on the bus? ;-) How about putting the
new list of templates in the Changed() signal? That way there'll be no
extra noise on the buzz when the list changes.

Anyway, I am still not entirely convinced about this API. I think
clients need a way to identify which blacklists come from where. I think
maybe a naming scheme would provide a better API. Like fx:

Let 'E' define the event dbus signature.

 - GetTemplates() -> ({sE})
 - AddTemplate(s, E)
 - RemoveTemplate(s)
 - Changed({sE})

Apps would use their normal namespaced bus names to construct blacklist
names. Like 'org.gnome.Epiphany.PrivateBrowsing' for the blacklist
template epiphany install when you enter private mode.

Blacklist API sucks
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Zeitgeist
Framework Team, which is subscribed to Zeitgeist Framework.

Status in Zeitgeist Framework: New

Bug description:
Guys, GetBlacklist and SetBlacklist (without any signals) for an 
asynchrounous-by-nature API? Come on!

How about changing it to Get, Add, Remove and a changed signal? That way it'd 
be actually usable...

Mailing list:
Post to     :
Unsubscribe :
More help   :

Reply via email to