Various more changes to dbus-python

John (J5) Palmieri johnp at
Wed Jan 10 10:24:57 PST 2007

On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 18:15 +0000, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007, John (J5) Palmieri wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 13:31 +0000, Simon McVittie wrote:
> >> As well as the patch to support switching off introspection in
> >> get_object and get_object_by_unique_name (thanks Ulisses),
> >
> > It all looks good except this get_object_by_unique_name method.  Why
> > can't we just use get_object and look at the input to determine if it is
> > a unique name?  There actually shouldn't be any difference between
> > requesting a unique name and regular name.  The only restriction on
> > unique names is that they must be assigned by the bus and not requested
> > by the client (i.e. you can not call RequestName on a unique name).
> >
> >
> It depends on the behavior when a name changes hands. If I get a proxy
> for and process 1 drops the name and process 2 acquires the
> name, should my proxy now refer to process 1, process 2 or neither?
> (More normally when a process exits and then connection again).
> At least, that's what the equivalent in Java does.

Unique name is a bad name for this API then.  unique names in D-Bus are
like ":0.1"  Personally I would just have an optional flag in the
get_object API called follow_name_changes or something to that effect.

John (J5) Palmieri <johnp at>

More information about the dbus mailing list