Semantics of o.fd.DBus.Properties

Matthew Johnson dbus at
Fri Feb 8 07:30:51 PST 2008

On Fri Feb 08 10:15, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> Hi,

> For these two examples, fwiw, I don't think you would write any code
> differently if the spec talked about them.
> I mean, it's clear that callers already expect that methods have a
> reply, and that the reply has the expected signature. But, at the same
> time, it's clear that callers should check these things. If no reply
> arrives the caller should time out, and if the reply is mangled the
> caller should treat it as if an error reply had been sent, most
> likely.

Yes, that's my point. These things are error conditions, the spec does
not say that, it just deals with the message passing. From reading the
spec I think you could expect them to work. Most of these should be
hidden by a binding.

Also, I deliberately quoted obvious examples. There are many things
which are not obvious (or even agreed upon) which should be written
down. My point is that I would like to document _what app/spec writers
should be allowed to do_ not _what is technically possible with the
underlying message passing architecture_

D-Bus Java
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : 

More information about the dbus mailing list