recursive types work

Mike Hearn mike at
Wed Dec 29 11:44:55 PST 2004

On Wed, 2004-12-29 at 13:51 -0500, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> I guess the question is whether we should do some type of "plain C
> bindings" (even if those are in the same shared object as libdbus)

That might make sense, but I think just designing the current APIs with
an eye towards ease of use would be fine. I don't think read_uint32 or
whatever is significantly easier than read(.., DBUS_TYPE_UINT32)

Working with low level C APIs gives you a tolerance to this sort of
verbosity anyway. An Xlib type API is probably fine (at least for me).

> For example the "plain C bindings" might also let you register your
> objects and implement Introspect() for you. If these bindings were in a
> different shared object we wouldn't have to get all angsty about bloat
> and could just make them, well, convenient.

That'd be fine yes, though the key thing really is that they're a part
of the same package. There shouldn't be users out there who have libdbus
but not libdbus-convenient, or whatever.

thanks -mike

More information about the dbus mailing list