[0.23.4 patch] RE: ServiceOwnerChanged wakes up everybody?

[Kimmo.Hamalainen at nokia.com]

Hi,

Here's the Anders' patch for the "detail" attribute ported for the
D-BUS v0.23.4. Also, a separate patch for dbus-monitor to monitor the attribute.
The patch does not have the changelog or specs changes, though.

(I even tested it.)

BR, Kimmo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dbus-bounces at lists.freedesktop.org
> [mailto:dbus-bounces at lists.freedesktop.org]On Behalf Of ext Anders
> Carlsson
> Sent: 10 June, 2005 00:02
> To: John (J5) Palmieri
> Cc: Hamalainen Kimmo (Nokia-M/Helsinki); dbus at lists.freedesktop.org;
> Havoc Pennington
> Subject: Re: ServiceOwnerChanged wakes up everybody?
> 
> 
> John (J5) Palmieri wrote:
> 
> >On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 22:27 +0200, Anders Carlsson wrote:
> >  
> >
> >>Havoc Pennington wrote:
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >>>On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 15:56 +0200, Anders Carlsson wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>>>Yeah, I did consider that at first but it would add a lot of extra
> >>>>complexity to the bus (as well as probably slow it down 
> somewhat), and
> >>>>I'm not sure it would gain that much.
> >>>>   
> >>>>
> >>>>        
> >>>>
> >>>Can you spell out what the extra complexity/slowdown would be? I'm
> >>>probably being dense but I would imagine the implementation looking
> >>>about the same as the one for the detail.
> >>>
> >>>Havoc
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>Wouldn't you have to do a linear search inside each message? If I
> >>specify arg7='3.14159', wouldn't that mean that all 
> messages would have
> >>to be searched to see if they had 7 arguments, then 
> checking the message
> >>type (which you'd also have to specify in the match 
> somehow) and finally
> >>comparing the message to see if it matches, taking into 
> account the byte
> >>order.
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >You would have to iterate over seven elements, demarshal it 
> and then do
> >the compare.  It looks like the header fields also have to 
> demarshal the
> >data so...  Also, if one had a match for arg7 and there are 
> only 6 args
> >I would qualify that as a failed match.  As for the argument type you
> >would have to check the signature of the iterator and 
> convert the match
> >rule appropriately.
> >
> >  
> >
> >>Also, I imagine that the matching rule syntax could potentially get
> >>pretty hairy (with the recursive type system), unless you 
> only want to
> >>match on toplevel arguments.
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >I would assume matching could only be done on basic types.
> >
> >  
> >
> >>I think that adding a detail field is simple enough...
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >The args matching would be more flexible and better defined. 
>  What does
> >details mean anyway?  It could be anything.  The arguments have more
> >context associated with them.
> >  
> >
> Yeah, that's true. Although I guess the same goes for the GSignal
> "detail" field.
> 
> Anyway, I've made a new patch with specification changes and 
> stuff. Feel
> free to do what you want with it :)
> 
> Anders
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: dbus-message-detail.diff
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 9911 bytes
Desc: dbus-message-detail.diff
Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dbus/attachments/20050614/3ec504ac/dbus-message-detail.obj
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: dbus-monitor.diff
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 7976 bytes
Desc: dbus-monitor.diff
Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dbus/attachments/20050614/3ec504ac/dbus-monitor.obj