mzqohf at 0pointer.de
Fri May 8 12:35:04 PDT 2009
On Fri, 08.05.09 13:47, David Zeuthen (david at fubar.dk) wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-05-08 at 19:06 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > If D-Bus was new and not yet as widely used adopting a different
> > language than XML could have been a good idea. But now?
> My experience with several dialects of introspection XML (at least
> three: Telepathy, ConsoleKit/DeviceKit-disks and eggdbus dialects) is
> something I'd rather be without. It's hard to get right, easy to get
> wrong and if you show it to someone, they just give you that blurry look
> like it's Ada or FORTRAN or ask you if you made money on fixing Y2K bugs
> in a previous life. So, no, D-Bus introspection XML is not something
> that _I_ want to show to a new person on my team, for example (not
> unless I wanted them to nominate me as the PHB on The Daily WTF or
Maybe you are doing something wrong if you just show the XML sources
around. I mean, stuff like the following doesn't look too bad, does it?
This is pretty old stuff, now if we'd have the documentation stuff
properly integrated into the XML format this could look much, much prettier.
> For your consideration:
> eggdbus xml for org.freedesktop.DBus:
> DeviceKit-disks xml for org.freedesktop.DeviceKit.Disks.Device:
I don't find this particular example that unreadable. And with some
XSLT sugar this could actually really nice. Much nicer than a C
inspired low-level syntex ever could. But yepp, that's just a matter
of taste again.
Lennart Poettering Red Hat, Inc.
lennart [at] poettering [dot] net
http://0pointer.net/lennart/ GnuPG 0x1A015CC4
More information about the dbus