D-Bus bindings: C++ or C?

[Patrick Ohly]

Hello!

I'm having second thoughts about the decision that Jussi and I made back
in January about using dbus-glib as the main interface to D-Bus in the
syncevo-dbus-server. The main rationale at that time was that it is
readily available and a known quantity.

However, after looking at some of the code that Jussi had to write to
make our C++ classes work as part of a D-Bus server I'm wondering
whether this advantage of dbus-glib is really worth it. Much of it is
manually written glue code between dbus-glib/GObject and C++.

I bet it would be a lot easier to solve this problem with dbus-c++.
Except that it isn't part of most (all?) distros and much of the
development takes place outside of the main project, with no recent
official release...

Another problem is lack or insufficient support for asynchronous method
calls. Some branches of dbus-c++ might have it. This would be a
deal-breaker, because we need that feature.

So anyway, here's my question to Jussi: how much work is it really to
implement the D-Bus API?

Question to packagers: would you mind if we bundled a version of
dbus-c++ with our source until some official release makes it into the
distros?

Any other alternatives?

-- 
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly

The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.