Object path values - which service do they belong to?

Havoc Pennington hp at redhat.com
Wed May 18 12:42:02 PDT 2005

On Wed, 2005-05-18 at 15:12 -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> Thick in this particular case (DBUS_TYPE_OBJECT_PATH)?  Or in general?

I don't know what I mean really ;-)

> I agree with that; I don't think mapping DBUS_TYPE_OBJECT_PATH to
> DBUS_TYPE_G_PROXY is an attempt to make things "location transparent" or
> anything so grand; it just makes the (so far) common case nice and saves
> you the trouble of constructing the proxy yourself when you want to
> actually invoke methods on the objects you get back.   

It would feel a lot better to me if a new proxy were constructed *each
time* (an implication is that you want to avoid sending any dbus
messages or other expense if a proxy is just constructed and finalized
without using it)

This keeps people from even thinking about doing things like storing
object data on proxies or pointer-comparing two proxies.

> However, one thing I should note is that due to the way the bindings are
> fully GType-based now, is that we can actually let clients choose how
> they want object paths demarshalled, by passing different GTypes in.  It
> would be pretty trivial to define a new DBUS_TYPE_G_OBJECT_PATH which
> derived from G_TYPE_BOXED, and then we could use it like this:

Or just let them use G_TYPE_STRING probably


More information about the dbus mailing list