User authentication to services
oliv__a at users.sourceforge.net
Fri Jun 25 06:34:28 PDT 2004
Kay Sievers [Thu, 24 Jun 2004]:
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 04:25:14PM +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.
> > > > - 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.
> Ok, here is a version that doesn't touch the existing code. It also
> avoids the multiplexing method with the dynamic return type.
> It just adds a "GetConnectionUnixUser" method similar to "GetServiceOwner".
> The method is explained in the spec and a unit test in dispatch.c is
> also added.
Thanks. Personally, I prefer it that way.
Nitpick: in bus_driver_handle_get_connection_unix_user in driver.c,
you could initialize the char * service to NULL. It's OK here because
the subsequent dbus_message_get_args has only one out argument, but if
it had several you'd have to initialize them before.
More information about the dbus