Unix FD Passing

[Thiago Macieira]

Lennart Poettering wrote:
>If we do this then I'd vote for going with flags that explicitly map
>to each feature. Doing "FEATURE_LEVEL" style all-in-one 'packages' of
>features doesn't really reflect what bindings might want.
>
>For example, most likely some high-level languages (Java?) might not
>be interested in supporting Unix FD passing at all. AFAICS there is no
>equivalent to close() in Java, so you'd have an int you cannot really
>make any sense of, and not even get rid of. However, they might be
>interested to support later features (such as float32). Allow them to
>support that without having to support Unix FD!

Well, Java has NIO, which abstracts the concept of file descriptors.

Anyways, the point here wasn't that the binding should have to expose the 
feature to its API. But the binding should be able to cope with those 
types when dealing with the message. A good example is my 
"transmarshalling" code: it would have to know that it would leak FDs by 
doing what it does.

-- 
  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/20090521/765e546b/attachment.pgp