Semantics of o.fd.DBus.Properties

[Thiago Macieira]

Matthew Johnson wrote:
>I agree with Havoc that you should certainly say that once you have had
>a reply to the Set call then you can expect Get to return the new value.
>I don't think we should rely too much on the serialisation of messages,
>since it restricts how they can be implemented.

I have to object here.

A Get-after-Set does not have to return the new value. But the Set must 
have completed and its effects taken place. There's a difference.

First, the value may be invalid. The setter function could have clamped or 
normalised, etc. Second, there may have been an intervening Set from 
another application.

-- 
  Thiago Macieira  -  thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org
    PGP/GPG: 0x6EF45358; fingerprint:
    E067 918B B660 DBD1 105C  966C 33F5 F005 6EF4 5358
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dbus/attachments/20080208/c28e5590/attachment.pgp