ServiceOwnerChanged wakes up everybody?

[Anders Carlsson]

John (J5) Palmieri wrote:

>On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 22:27 +0200, Anders Carlsson wrote:
>  
>
>>Havoc Pennington wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 15:56 +0200, Anders Carlsson wrote:
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>Yeah, I did consider that at first but it would add a lot of extra
>>>>complexity to the bus (as well as probably slow it down somewhat), and
>>>>I'm not sure it would gain that much.
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>Can you spell out what the extra complexity/slowdown would be? I'm
>>>probably being dense but I would imagine the implementation looking
>>>about the same as the one for the detail.
>>>
>>>Havoc
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Wouldn't you have to do a linear search inside each message? If I
>>specify arg7='3.14159', wouldn't that mean that all messages would have
>>to be searched to see if they had 7 arguments, then checking the message
>>type (which you'd also have to specify in the match somehow) and finally
>>comparing the message to see if it matches, taking into account the byte
>>order.
>>    
>>
>
>You would have to iterate over seven elements, demarshal it and then do
>the compare.  It looks like the header fields also have to demarshal the
>data so...  Also, if one had a match for arg7 and there are only 6 args
>I would qualify that as a failed match.  As for the argument type you
>would have to check the signature of the iterator and convert the match
>rule appropriately.
>
>  
>
>>Also, I imagine that the matching rule syntax could potentially get
>>pretty hairy (with the recursive type system), unless you only want to
>>match on toplevel arguments.
>>    
>>
>
>I would assume matching could only be done on basic types.
>
>  
>
>>I think that adding a detail field is simple enough...
>>    
>>
>
>The args matching would be more flexible and better defined.  What does
>details mean anyway?  It could be anything.  The arguments have more
>context associated with them.
>  
>
Yeah, that's true. Although I guess the same goes for the GSignal
"detail" field.

Anyway, I've made a new patch with specification changes and stuff. Feel
free to do what you want with it :)

Anders

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: dbus-message-detail.diff
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 14565 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dbus/attachments/20050609/038eadce/dbus-message-detail.bin