Mono bindings

Joe Shaw joeshaw at
Wed Mar 1 16:16:44 PST 2006


Adam Lofts wrote:
> Sure, though is it not best to keep the low level wrappers in until an 
> api which provides all required functionality is reached? The tarball 
> wasn't intended to be a "release" and is not polished by any standards. 
> Most of my effort so far has just been getting in all the functionality 
> i require :)

Yeah, as long as it's the binding itself which requires them, that's 
fine.  I don't have the code in front of me anymore now that I'm at 
home, but it might be good to mark all the internal stuff (methods or 
classes) as such.  You may have already done this though.

> It would be trivial to modify the constructor to ImportObject to accept 
> a Connection and a service name instead of a service. All the service 
> object really does is to bind a name and a connection. I.e.
> public static ImportObject Create (Service service, string target_path, 
> Type [] ifaces)
> would become
> public static ImportObject Create (Connection connection, string 
> service_name, string target_path, Type [] ifaces)

The service name shouldn't even be necessary here.  And I'd really drop 
all "service" nomenclature; it's not a part of the dbus lexicon anymore.

I don't think the service name is necessary anyhow.  It really only 
matters when taking to a bus; the bindings should also work when doing 
peer-to-peer connections.

> I'm not sure I really understand what you are saying about introspection 
> data. Do you mean generating new types based on introspection data?

When I said "introspection" what I really meant was "reflection."  As 
in, System.Reflection.


More information about the dbus mailing list