Announcing new version of the Qt4 bindings

Havoc Pennington hp at
Mon Feb 13 11:21:15 PST 2006

On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 18:41 +0100, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> So, unless someone objects, we'll go forward with it. The current 
> maintainer (myself) and previous maintainer (Harald Fernengel) are Ok 
> with this.
> That would mean that, sometime in the next few days, I'd integrate the 
> changes that I have made to the source code into the CVS and make it the 
> main platform. (The diff currently stands at 280k, ~8800 lines, having 
> touched 50 files, 27 of which are new).

Absolutely, it's up to you guys. You are also welcome to keep the
bindings wherever you want (as John mentions, there's been some recent
discussion about where bindings should live, etc.). It's probably going
to be practical to keep bindings separate from the dbus tarball now that
the protocol and library are more or less stable and on the verge of
1.0. But there are also advantages to the single distribution with all
major bindings I guess.

Did you find any "this should really be fixed for 1.0" kind of issues in
doing your bindings, btw?

As John also alludes to, it'd sure be nice to figure out how to
round-trip lots of different kinds of method call through each binding;
dbus_internal_do_not_use_generate_bodies() already exists that generates
the lots of different kinds of message body so maybe that is useful. I
don't think it's necessarily needed to test bindings vs. each other as
long as each binding can round-trip a given block of arguments through
itself then interoperability in principle works (at least as far as
message arguments are concerned).


More information about the dbus mailing list