User authentication to services

Kay Sievers kay.sievers at
Fri Jun 18 08:00:27 PDT 2004

On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 16:25 +0200, Olivier Andrieu wrote:
>  Kay Sievers [Fri, 18 Jun 2004]:
>  > > - the BaseName property replicates the functionality of 
>  > >   the GetServiceOwner, so we need to decide between these two.
>  > 
>  > I've replaced it by GetProperty and changed:
>  >   dbus/glib/dbus-gproxy.c:dbus_gproxy_new_for_service_owner() to call
>  >   it instead. (Hmm, needs to be tested if it still works)
>  > 
>  > Is it ok, this way? If yes, I will change the spec too.
> What's wrong with having two different methods ? With a single
> GetProperty method the reply message carries either an INT32 or a
> STRING. That(s not very nice.

I don't have a problem with the "dynamic type", but keeping them as
separate methods may be cleaner. We can also keep the 'service' and
'connection' naming by not merging them. 

>  > > - the name "GetServiceProperty" isn't a bit funny; it's a 
>  > >   property of the connection, not the service. 
>  > >   Suggest just "GetProperty"
> But the base name is a property of the service.

Hmm, we have too many options now:

1. just add another method to get the uid
   (easy to to, doesn't touch existing code)

2. merge into a generic method
   (with dynamic return type)

3. merge into a string list returning method
   (just one call for n properties, but heavy interface and uid is
    converted to a string)

No strong feeling, I'm fine with any of the options.
I just don't like the uid to be a string :)

Which way to take, please share your thoughts?


More information about the dbus mailing list