memory freeing necessary?

[Tako Schotanus]

Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2006, Havoc Pennington wrote:
>
>>> and other services do the same? Should the file extension be ".xml". Or
>>> do we want a dbus specific one, e.g. ".dbus-introspection-data"? What's
>>> the MIME type going to be (for example what about
>>> "application/dbus-introspection-data" or do we not need one?
>>
>> I don't know here, what do other apps do?
>
> A fairly even split, I think. We aren't really pushing this as a Format
> (cf open document, xsl, etc) and nothing needs it as a separate
> mime-type, so .xml is fine imo
Agreed, these files are not something were are going to be passing 
around all the time.
>
>>>  - Should we require or just encourage apps to drop files there? Some
>>>    apps are not really are introspectable (hal just gained this in CVS
>>>    HEAD a month or two ago, NM still don't IIRC) and some never will,
>>>    so suggest to not require it.
>>
>> I think encourage.
>
> I think _all_ apps should be introspectable. It's a condition of the
> bindings that they provide this, I think a c-api dbus program which
> doesn't should be considered a bug.
I agree, unless somebody can come up with a reason why they can't 
provide introspection for their interfaces for some reason.

Another thing is of course if they should be required to install 
introspection _files_.

Which I think brings us back to the question if you want them to be part 
of the -devel package or the main package. Some implementations might 
just want to pass the contents of some.interface.Foo.xml when somebody 
calls introspect() on that interface? It might even be the default 
implementation for introspect()?

Cheers,
 -Tako