[systemd-devel] sd-bus vs glib object path node hierarchy

[Krzesimir Nowak]

16 cze 2015 6:09 PM "Lennart Poettering" <lennart at poettering.net>
napisał(a):
>
> On Tue, 16.06.15 15:51, Umut Tezduyar Lindskog (umut at tezduyar.com) wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have noticed that glib vs sd-bus have different hierarchy in terms
> > of how objects are stacked. I don't have any argument why one or the
> > other one would be better but I was wondering what the reason for this
> > difference.
> >
> > "/com/a/b" registered with sd_bus_add_object_vtable
> > Introspection:
> > └─/com/a/b
> >
> > "/com/a/b" registered with glib
> > Introspection:
> > └─/com
> >   └─/com/a
> >     └─/com/a/b
>
> Yeah, the spec says nothing about this. It's not clear whether
> "middle" nodes should be synthesized or not for cases like this. I
> decided to keep things minimal for sd-bus, and I think we should stay
> with that unless this turns out to be a real problem for
> something. Note though that the nodes in between actually are
> accessible if you use their path explicitly, they just aren't
> announced in the introspection, that's all.
>
> But maybe Simon has an opinion on this? Simon?

That reminds me of a bug (or not-a-bug) in go-dbus [1] - it also generates
flat hierarchy. This is a problem for tools like d-feet - they fail to
introspect services with flat hierarchy. Of course, it might be a bug in
d-feet itself.

[1] https://github.com/godbus/dbus/issues/14

>
> Lennart
>
> --
> Lennart Poettering, Red Hat
> _______________________________________________
> systemd-devel mailing list
> systemd-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/attachments/20150616/2ae3c101/attachment.html>