Proposed draft for the thumbnail D-Bus specification
hp at pobox.com
Thu Sep 4 05:54:33 PDT 2008
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 4:59 AM, Philip Van Hoof <spam at pvanhoof.be> wrote:
> It's not necessary to create a new object on the bus for this, in my
> opinion. The handle is just for the unqueue, with an object on the bus
> the application developer would have to track proxies to it to use the
> unqueue operation. That sounds overkill to me. The Queue also has a
> handle_to_unqueue, what should I pass here? The mktemp-style random
> string? Right now both `handle_to_unqueue` and the `Unqueue` operation
> share the same kind of things that get passed (a simple handle).
> Not sure about this ...
If the only operation on handle is unqueue, then an object is possibly
overkill, matter of taste I guess. But if you started adding
additional operations it would start to be a little ugly, so if handle
is OK with just unqueue, I'd at least try to be pretty sure there
won't be more operations.
> org.freedesktop.PowerManagement.BlackLight.GetBrightness ()
> org.freedesktop.PowerManagement.BlackLight.SetBrightness ()
This is kinda weird (an "inner interface") - think about how it would
map to Java or C++ or even GObject. At the very least the mapping
would involve a lot of typing, because you can't do a "using" with an
interface in the same way you can with a package or namespace, and in
GObject this is going to be a very long function name.
More information about the xdg