org.freedesktop.DBus.Introspectable

[Steve Kreyer]

Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Steve Kreyer wrote:
>   
>> Now Iam totally confused :-) I requested the method like you suggested:
>> dbus-send --print-reply --dest=my.domain.program /path/to/myobject
>> org.freedesktop.DBus.Introspectable.Introspect
>> and the reply are the "raw interface definitions" of the interfaces
>> which are supported by myobject + the spec of Introspectable.Introspect.
>> But it seems that it doesn't care whether myobject  supports and
>> implements the method org.freedesktop.DBus.Introspectable.Introspect
>> explicitly or not. So I ask  myself if any object, which registers to
>> the bus, gets an implementation of
>> org.freedesktop.DBus.Introspectable.Introspect automatically in any way?
>>     
>
> First of all, objects do not register. At least, not if you look into the 
> protocol itself.
>
> Applications (connections) register. They register "bus names", or more 
> simply "names".
>
> However, bindings have borrows the concept of "registering" to objects. In 
> bindings, you register an object so that it is available under a given 
> object path over D-Bus. But mind you, the action of registering an object 
> in a binding carries out absolutely no action at the protocol level: 
> neither the bus daemon nor other programs get to know what happens.
>
>   
So does this mean that the addressing of an object via the object path 
depends on the binding which is used, and is not a part of the lower 
based protocol?
> Now, you did not mention any binding in your original email or your new 
> one. But given that you're so lost, yet your objects seem to be 
> introspectable, you are probably using a binding. Which one, you have to 
> tell us.
> In any case, a binding's job is to provide many of the facilities required 
> to interoperate properly with other D-Bus clients. One of such tasks is 
> to reply to Introspect requests with the proper XML, generated from the 
> object's actual content.
>   
Sorry, I wasn't aware about the neccessary differentiation of binding 
vs. protocol on this issue. Iam using the glib-binding.
So if I understand you right, the binding makes my object introspectable 
and does the job for me. So this is comfortable to me, because I haven't 
take care about it :-)

Regards,
Steve
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3245 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dbus/attachments/20070526/83fbbf11/attachment.bin