IDL language

[Lennart Poettering]

On Fri, 08.05.09 11:22, David Zeuthen (david at fubar.dk) wrote:

> 
> On Fri, 2009-05-08 at 16:19 +0100, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> > On Fri May 08 11:14, David Zeuthen wrote:
> > > Everyone who write non-trivial D-Bus services with non-private
> > > interfaces already extends D-Bus introspection XML (we have seen this:
> > > Telepathy, ConsoleKit, DeviceKit-*), this is just an effort to
> > > consolidate all this work.
> > 
> > Without necessarily suggesting that your IDL is bad, I'd like to say
> > that this is not a reason to drop XML, merely to standardise the
> > features which people are adding with their dialects. 
> 
> Sure, D-Bus introspection XML is immensely useful at run-time and you
> can't really remove it - that's, AFAICT, why it was invented in the
> first place (e.g. a way for dynamic languages to call into a service).
> 
> Using D-Bus introspection XML as an IDL as people are today, however, is
> what I'm opposed to. It's not really what it was intended for. And I
> think it's a mistake to officially say it is.

Please elaborate a bit on this! Why shouldn't the current language be
used as IDL?

Lennart

-- 
Lennart Poettering                        Red Hat, Inc.
lennart [at] poettering [dot] net
http://0pointer.net/lennart/           GnuPG 0x1A015CC4