PATCH: Implicit activation

Richard Hult richard at
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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: implact.diff
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 35723 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :

More information about the dbus mailing list