16 cze 2015 6:09 PM "Lennart Poettering" <<a href="mailto:lennart@poettering.net">lennart@poettering.net</a>> napisał(a): > > On Tue, 16.06.15 15:51, Umut Tezduyar Lindskog (<a href="mailto:umut@tezduyar.com">umut@tezduyar.com</a>) wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I have noticed that glib vs sd-bus have different hierarchy in terms > > of how objects are stacked. I don't have any argument why one or the > > other one would be better but I was wondering what the reason for this > > difference. > > > > "/com/a/b" registered with sd_bus_add_object_vtable > > Introspection: > > └─/com/a/b > > > > "/com/a/b" registered with glib > > Introspection: > > └─/com > > └─/com/a > > └─/com/a/b > > Yeah, the spec says nothing about this. It's not clear whether > "middle" nodes should be synthesized or not for cases like this. I > decided to keep things minimal for sd-bus, and I think we should stay > with that unless this turns out to be a real problem for > something. Note though that the nodes in between actually are > accessible if you use their path explicitly, they just aren't > announced in the introspection, that's all. > > But maybe Simon has an opinion on this? Simon? That reminds me of a bug (or not-a-bug) in go-dbus [1] - it also generates flat hierarchy. This is a problem for tools like d-feet - they fail to introspect services with flat hierarchy. Of course, it might be a bug in d-feet itself. [1] <a href="https://github.com/godbus/dbus/issues/14">https://github.com/godbus/dbus/issues/14</a> > > Lennart > > -- > Lennart Poettering, Red Hat > _______________________________________________ > systemd-devel mailing list > <a href="mailto:systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org">systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org</a> > <a href="http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel">http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel</a>