steve.kreyer at web.de
Sat May 26 08:46:47 PDT 2007
Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Steve Kreyer wrote:
>> 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?
> I don't understand the question.
> The message format is defined in the specification. The object paths are
> also restricted to something defined in the specification.
I wanted to know if the object path. in general. is something which is
binding-specific, or specified by the spec (maybe "lower based protocol"
was the wrong terminology). So your reply does satisfy my request.
> If that doesn't answer, please rephrase the question.
>> 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 :-)
> Well, if you don't know which one is at issue, you should assume it can be
> any part of the chain. So you should volunteer all information.
For the next time I will keep this in mind, to avoid possible confusions.
> Yes, using bindings takes care of generating introspections. I highly
> recommend using a binding, never to use libdbus-1 directly.
Thanks for the clarification!
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 3245 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dbus/attachments/20070526/f03b78ee/attachment-0001.bin
More information about the dbus