John (J5) Palmieri johnp at redhat.com
Wed Sep 13 10:15:51 PDT 2006

On Wed, 2006-09-13 at 12:19 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> John (J5) Palmieri wrote:
> > While your frustration is understandable your solution is not well
> > thought out.  Part of the problem is documentation which we do need to 
> > work on.  The real solution here is making threading evident to even
> > those who don't use it but may in the future.  I got a lot of pushback
> > from suggesting we turn on threads full time.  And no it was not from
> > zealots.
> Did they know about dbus_thread_disable() or whatever that was also in 
> alex's patch? (btw that patch is still outstanding, is it blocking on me 
> in some way?)
> What were the objections?

My current objects are API and semantic changes.  I agreed to alex's
patch for an init_threads_default to avoid the API change.  It is so
late in the game if we do want to initalize threads we would have to
make threads_init a noop.  

> > The idea is to have a public dbus_g_init(gboolean is_threaded) function.
> > Most libraries have an init function so this is fine and we need it
> > anyway since the type system is currently initialized by dbus_g_bus_get
> > and there are instances where you need to use dbus types before you get
> > a connection.
> I think this is kind of a downgrade; init functions are in general evil 
> (I consider g_type_init() a design bug)

We still need it for specialized types.  There have been many a
scratched head on why D-Bus GLib calls weren't working that finally came
down to types weren't initialized because dbus_g_bus_get wasn't called
yet.  It is easier to spot that someone didn't call the init function.

In any case if use Alex's patch, make dbus_threads_init a noop and turn
on threading by default means I can take the recursive mutex TODO off
(since it is internal), I'll be happy with that.  If it means pulling
out a heap of code, changing API and upping the soname I don't think it
is worth it.

The other issue to consider is that D-Bus is deployed so widely now that
this change will inevitably lead to:

#ifdef DBUS_VERSION >= 0.93

if people care all that much.  Not a big issue but I know I'm not going
to hear the end of it for some time. But that should figure into this
change if it is the right thing to do before 1.0.

John (J5) Palmieri <johnp at redhat.com>

More information about the dbus mailing list