Inclusion of documentation in introspection data?

[Tako Schotanus]

Sure, but that's a case you can handle while making your program, but if 
in a future version we will have a way to filter out documents and 
people start writing MBs of documentation because it won't be a burden 
on the bus anyway we are still stuck with older programs that don't do 
any filtering. (And you still have the problem of knowing which 
annotations to filter and which not).

But I agree with you that this isn't something that should get fixed 
right now for version 1.0, this could easily be handled afterwards, but 
IMO that also means no official documentation annotations in version 1.0 
either until we have thought a little more about the rammifications (or 
are notations never official?).

But hey, you're the guys doing all the work :-)

Cheers,
 -Tako


John (J5) Palmieri wrote:

>And someone can write a program to send huge data across the bus now or
>run in a continuous loop and take up your CPU.  We really can't solve
>for these problems so I'm not worrying about it too much.  What I don't
>want to do is mandate or approve something that in the end turns out to
>be a bad idea.  Since we are so close to 1.0 it would be especially
>painful if it turns out to become a bottleneck. Remember it is easier to
>add things in the future than to take them away.    
>
>On Tue, 2005-10-25 at 01:53 +0200, Tako Schotanus wrote:
>  
>
>>Havoc Pennington wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>What John says about experimenting with it as a custom annotation then
>>>we could add it post-1.0 seems sensible. If it uses too much bandwidth
>>>we could add some kind of introspect method that lets you specify
>>>annotations to exclude or something like that later on.
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Ok, but that's less backward compatible, not that it will actually break 
>>anything but if future introspection data suddenly start passing 
>>megabytes of annotations programs compiled against older versions would 
>>suddenly become a burden on system resources, wouldn't they?
>>
>>So maybe introspection should by default leave out all annotations or 
>>something like that? Probably not, I imagine.
>>
>>Another option would be to distinguish between annotations that add 
>>actual machine-usable information and annotations that are only there  
>>for the benefit of us humans (like documentation).
>>
>>Of course in the end it all depends on how much the introspection 
>>feature is going to be used, but it seems logical that  if we start 
>>passing around MBs of data (even while filtering out the annotations you 
>>know are  bandwidth eaters there could still be new ones you didn't know 
>>about) some possible uses of introspection will made more difficult. 
>>(Don't know, you want to expand your spam mail filtering script with 
>>some call to a DBus service which has to generate a proxy on the fly 
>>using the introspection data for example ;-)
>>
>>Cheers,
>>-Tako
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>dbus mailing list
>>dbus at lists.freedesktop.org
>>http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dbus
>>    
>>