glib bindings (Was Re: [patch] gobject sender and pid)

[David Zeuthen]

On Mon, 2006-03-13 at 23:52 +0000, Robert McQueen wrote:
> > but still no dice with dbus-binding-tool. 
> 
> Hmm, how no dice? It wouldn't appear to function any differently until
> runtime - that annotation should be all you need, then in your method
> signature, don't put any out arguments, and instead of a GError, the
> last argument is a DBusGMethodInvocation instead.

Yup, that was exactly what I was missing.

> > Sure, my patch was experimental but it should really be possible to get
> > the sender for sync calls too. To write a secure system bus service, you
> > really need to know who the caller is.
> 
> Does it really matter that much? I don't see any sensible way to attach
> a context with things like the sender and path to a synchronous call
> without turning it into something which isn't just a straight C method
> call. If you do want to involve yourself in the bus more closely and get
> an object representing the context of the call, this is what exactly
> what the async annotation does - I don't regard it as an abuse.

Yea, that makes sense to me; perhaps just make every async so developers
(like me) don't get confused :-). So.. I'm just learning the dbus-glib
bindings and so far I'm pretty happy. It's almost like C no longer
sucks :-) - A few requests still

 1. Adding exceptions to introspection data; I raised this way back

     http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dbus/2005-March/002447.html

    and I still think it would be useful. These days I _still_ have
    to grep my source code instead of just doing Introspect() or what
    ever. I wonder how people writing apps speaking to HAL cope; oh
    wait, we can check that; they don't handle all errors and I need
    to point them to 5 different source files for them to figure out
    what exceptions some method can throw... Pretty please?

 2. Should we install the introspection XML somewhere? As discussed
    in the thread about a year back I don't think there was any
    consensus.. Ideally the hal-devel or PolicyKit-devel RPM packages
    or whatever would include this just like we include header files
    and library stubs in such packages. I don't really think D-BUS
    services are much different.

Apart from that: great work guys, I really enjoy using these bindings!

Cheers,
David