Skype and DBus: should my client library act as a server?

[Julien JPK]

On 18/03/15 20:33, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On 18/03/15 20:00, Julien JPK wrote:
>>  - Start sending my requests from another thread.
> 
> Threads! You had a problem, you solved it with threads, and now you have
> two problems working in parallel :-)
> 
> libdbus suffers greatly from having to have its own
> a-bit-like-GLib-but-not-as-good "make C non-horrible" layer. If you are
> not under constraints similar to dbus-daemon, I recommend avoiding libdbus.

When I read the DBus documentation, I thought that the "very low-level"
part of libdbus was the "not recommended" piece, but I did not see that
maintainers were actually discouraging the use of the entire API...

While the DBus website clearly states:

"It should be noted that the low-level implementation is not primarily
designed for application authors to use."

... I thought that library developers could still be an exception to the
rule: "Rather, it is a basis for binding authors and a reference for
reimplementations."

Do you mean that libdbus should only be used by developers who work very
closely to DBus itself (developing the daemon, and other key components)
? Does it mean that application developers are somehow "obliged" to rely
at least on GLib/GDBus (since all other bindings are even more
"high-level") ? I'm a bit surprised to see that there is no "approved"
way to program with DBus while staying at a reasonably low level of
abstraction...

-- 
Julien Kritter (PGP key 0xC3075A58)
julienjpk at email.com