quintesse at palacio-cristal.com
Fri May 28 13:00:33 PDT 2004
Havoc Pennington wrote:
> 3. finish the bindings so "the way it's supposed to work"
> is clear; the idea is that the binding APIs use the native
> language concepts of object, interface, and signal.
> e.g. you should not see the "sender" from the DBusMessage when
> using a binding, instead you should see the proxy object and the
> message args. And you can even call proxy.get_well_known_service()
> if the proxy was bound to a well-known service.
I wouldn't mind taking a stab at finishing the Qt bindings although like
I said before on this list my knowledge of Qt and even Linux programming
is still quite limited. The only thing I can bring to the table is years
of software engineering experience and the wish for finished Qt bindings.
The Qt stuff I can pick up myself but I _would_ like a more thorough
understanding of what you think the binding should look like, not
talking about implementation details ofcourse but rather the ideas
behind them. Is there a document already that talks about these kind of
(design) ideas or is this something that is still vague?
I see for example that the Mono bindings seem much more defined already
than the Qt bindings, does this mean I could take a look at its design
and try to implement something similar? Or is its design still not what
you had in mind?
More information about the dbus