exposing the portability layer

[Colin Walters]

On Wed, 2003-05-28 at 17:59, Havoc Pennington wrote:

> More philosophically, this API would be the same thing as GLib - does
> it make sense to use a GLib equivalent that just starts with the dbus_
> prefix instead, in order to to avoid a GLib dependency? How is the
> dbus_ dependency different? It seems pretty strange from a technical
> standpoint.

Well, the project is pretty fundamentally based on D-BUS; using it is
one of the main things to distinguish it from other projects in this
particular area.  So that's how the D-BUS dependency is different from a
GLib dependency.

> Even more philosophically, my general feeling is that each library
> should have a clear functional purpose and should export only the API
> that matches said purpose. Otherwise you get a mess.

Yeah.

Your arguments make sense.  I'll go ahead and use GLib then.