Errors and the introspection format
hp at redhat.com
Mon Feb 20 17:08:10 PST 2006
On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 00:12 +0000, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Feb 2006, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> > Possibly the NoReply annotation should have been GLib.NoReply, and
> > separately we should have a Qt.Async to match the DCOP-compat kind of
> > feature done in Qt bindings which is slightly different; this would also
> > help clarify that NoReply is just about bindings and code generation,
> > not about any intrinsic property of an interface or the wire protocol.
> surely not GLib, it's useful in other bindings too.
Useful with exactly the same semantic in all bindings?
What you and Thiago have described is not what I thought the annotation
meant, for example, when it was added to the glib bindings. Nor do I
think you and Thiago are 100% in sync on what it means.
Here's the exercise: write the the spec description of this annotation
and what it means and when it should be used or not used.
I would find it helpful also to explore when to use this annotation with
some concrete examples, something like the LaunchMusicPlayer() and
"calculate PI" examples I posted, or other examples of choice.
If it's an interoperable shared annotation it has to have consistent
semantics across bindings, documented in the spec. So we have to figure
out what those semantics are. If we do binding-specific annotations,
then the bindings can make them mean whatever they like.
Who wants to try proposing the semantics/usage-guidelines? ;-)
More information about the dbus