David Zeuthen zeuthen at
Thu May 13 04:17:04 PDT 2010


On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 5:10 AM, Thiago Macieira <thiago at> wrote:
> I agree with this, but I'd swap the "in s interface" parameter with "in b
> recursive".

No booleans please - it's almost always a better idea to use flag
enumerations as you can extend flags without breaking ABI. See e.g.
other message bus APIs - in fact, one of the methods takes an unused
flag param with no flags (IIRC, Havoc once told me it's there just for
future extension).

> Either you want to know the direct descendants, or all of them.
> But I don't like giving people the ability to search for an interface. That
> will lead to bad client code instead.

[Citation needed] (I, for one, don't agree with your assertion. But,
hey, I could be convinced if there's a good example....)

Btw, if we wanted to make things more complicated, we *could* replace
Lennart's interface string with a D-Bus Match Rule since it is already
designed to match things. But I think that's a bit too much to require
each client and/or binding to implement support for that. But it _is_
more generic! :-)


More information about the dbus mailing list