PATCH: Implicit activation
richard at imendio.com
Sun Mar 14 15:53:14 PST 2004
New patch attached with debug cruft removed, code and a test added for
checking that auto-activation isn't set on messages for the bus driver
or null services.
> - I'm trying to think of a better name than
> set_implicit_activation(); maybe set_auto_activation()
> or set_start_service() or set_start_if_not_running() or
> something like that?
I prefer "activate" over "start" to avoid confusion as the term is
"activate" in the rest of the API. set_auto_activation() sounds good to
me. I've updated the patch accordingly.
> - the transaction to be rolled back if the acquire_service()
> fails due to OOM is pretty complicated now, need to be sure
> the tests cover it
Agreed. The test that involves acquire only does non-oom in this patch,
since it occasionally will block when there is no reply due to oom.
> - implicit activation flag and its semantics should be added to
> the spec
Yes, I'll take care of that.
Richard Hult richard at imendio.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 35723 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://freedesktop.org/pipermail/dbus/attachments/20040315/578fe073/implact-0001.bin
More information about the dbus