Question on service activation

[Kevin Krammer]

On Thursday 22 February 2007 22:34, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Kevin Krammer wrote:
> >It wouldn't have made sense to continue designing a service broker if
> > that's already handled by the existing infrastructure.
>
> The daemon is the service broker.

That's what we concluded but Havoc explained that it isn't.

> I find no need to have an *interface* broker. If you have a well-known
> service, all you need to know is which path(s) should be accessed on it,
> and which interface(s) to access with.

Hmm, well.
Seem I didn't get the right words the first time, I'll try again.

Application Okular wants to send the current document by email. It knows that 
any email service will implement the interface pim.EMail

One of my questions in the original mail was: can an application assume 
equality between interface name and D-Bus connection name and maybe even 
equality (apart from the separator) with object path.

Or in the example, can Okular do  the equivalent of
dbus-send --dest=pim.EMail /pim/EMail pim.EMail.OpenComposer ...

The next question is a follow up: what if the process implementing pim.EMail 
also implements pim.Contacts.

Ideally the process will end up owning both names, but if one application 
activated pim.EMail and one activated pim.Contacts, isn't it a race condition 
between the process registering both names and the bus starting the a second 
instance of the process?

Cheers,
Kevin

-- 
Kevin Krammer, KDE developer, xdg-utils developer
KDE user support, developer mentoring
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dbus/attachments/20070222/9ea590c4/attachment.pgp