Problems with mono bindings

Adam Lofts adam.lofts at
Sat Mar 26 15:51:16 PST 2005


I've been using the mono dbus bindings, and have come up against a few
problems. Namely,

- The bindings are too slow. All types are boxed and unboxed during
transmission (although i don't think this is the only problem).

- No support for messages without replies / asynchronous communication

- Inability to use remote objects at method parameters on the client side. eg

object my_obj = Service.Get ( connection, "my.interface" );
my_obj.Method ( my_obj );

- No access to raw dbus api


- InterfaceAttribute is defined on an object type, not an interface type.

- ? Support for value types ?

Some of the problems above are inherent in the architecture of the
current bindings - e.g. the whole DBusType namespace implies boxing of
parameters. Because of this i have experimented with writing another
mono binding, which is at a state where the basic raw api is (mostly)
exposed and dynamic objects are created sufficient to call functions
with no return message (without any boxing of parameters).

If i carry keep working on my bindings (and they prove to be faster),
would they be accepted into dbus? Would they require an identical API?
Would i offend anyone in the process?


More information about the dbus mailing list