Object paths naming conventions?

Havoc Pennington hp at pobox.com
Fri Jul 18 08:50:42 PDT 2008


On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Marcel Holtmann <marcel at holtmann.org> wrote:
> this is actually wrong. Two independent specifications can perfectly
> share one object path. The namespacing of the interfaces is here the
> important bit.

I wrote the spec, the library, and the daemon, so I think I know what
they are about. Yes, you can dynamically switch on interface and then
route the message to different objects. No, that is not how it's
intended to work nor is it how libdbus is set up to work nor is it how
most bindings work nor does it make any sense.

> I can see a point that some bindings are limited in how to express
> multiple interfaces on one object path and separate this, but that is
> really an issue of the binding and not the D-Bus API that we trying to
> expose. And if the bindings are limited, then the bindings are broken.

dbus is set up to encourage a particular kind of mapping to language
bindings, and that mapping is that a language object goes at an object

> That is not what I meant. I meant that in most cases we need two extra
> roundtrips to the message bus to get the root object.

Not if the root object has a well-known name.


More information about the dbus mailing list