Semantics of o.fd.DBus.Properties

Simon McVittie simon.mcvittie at
Fri Feb 8 08:22:26 PST 2008

Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 at 14:07:14 +0000, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Fri Feb 08 13:39, Simon McVittie wrote:
> > Right. This is a general complaint I have with the D-Bus spec - it tells
> > you everything D-Bus can do (gives binding authors something to aim
> > for), but it doesn't tell D-Bus API designers what they can get away
> > with and what they should avoid.
> I agree. I think that the official D-Bus spec should actually be what is
> conceptually allowed and supported by the majority of the bindings /
> implementations. Otherwise we're allowing people to reply to methods
> with a different signature to the one specified in the introspection,
> for example. Or not sending a reply/error at all. (clearly these are Bad
> and Wrong, but they are allowed by the low level spec...)

Can we perhaps have a "D-Bus object model" spec (or section of the spec),
which is defined in terms of the "D-Bus message passing" spec?

Object model implementations include: ndesk-dbus (public API), dbus-glib,
QtDBus, dbus-java, dbus-python (main API)

Message passing implementations/bindings include: ndesk-dbus (internal API)
dbus-python (dbus.lowlevel, as a binding to libdbus), hippo-dbus-helper

Both are useful to have.



More information about the dbus mailing list