exposing the portability layer
28 May 2003 18:15:05 -0400
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
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
> 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.
Your arguments make sense. I'll go ahead and use GLib then.