Return an object from a method

John (J5) Palmieri johnp at
Thu May 11 11:44:02 PDT 2006

On Thu, 2006-05-11 at 14:36 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> John (J5) Palmieri wrote:
> >
> > I'm thinking we should standardize on a tuple format for sending
> > service, interface and object path between bindings as part of the spec.
> > Not sure if we need to add a new data type but this would make it easy
> > to say send a Python dbus.ProxyObject or dbus.Interface as an argument
> > to method and have the binding on the other side reconstruct the proxy.
> > Object paths on their own are just not descriptive enough.  
> > 
> There's a lot of historical discussion of this "object references" 
> issue, if considering it suggest searching the archives for some of the 
> threads and trying to summarize the issues in one writeup.
> It's a major can of worms in certain ways, I would not do it for 1.0.
> I think it's more something that "seems elegant" than something that's 
> genuinely all that useful. But then I'm in the "do IPC explicitly" camp 
> not the "network transparency" camp most of the time.

Yep I remember these discussions however having a standard tuple
sequence if not a hard type would be beneficial.

John (J5) Palmieri <johnp at>

More information about the dbus mailing list