Hi Brian, >> I understand that there is no difference on-the-wire between a >> function-call and message passing. The difference is in peoples >> perceptions and expectations. >> >> When I read CORBA IDL and see: >> >> int AFunction (int, int); >> >> Because of the connotations provided to me by years of procedural >> languages I expect this function call to be synchronous. I hope to break >> these perceptions by providing a message-based IDL. > > I don't have this perception; I think you're mistaking your own > perceptions for the majority's. > > One of the huge benefits of this entire exercise is to "hide" dbus calls > and make them look like methods on an object. If you're going to avoid > calling dbus methods "methods," then I fail to see the point. > > Whether or not the object is local (in-process) or not is irrelevant. > Whether or not the method call is sync or async is also irrelevant. It's > a method call, pure and simple. DBus itself even calls them method > calls. All you're doing by avoiding that in the IDL is making us learn > and remember yet another confusing and incompatible syntax. > > I ask you to *please* reconsider not using some normal method-call > syntax for the IDL. There's really no reason to do otherwise. If there > really is a perception problem, people need to fix that on their own. >
I am actually re-using something that already exists. The struct-like syntax for message-passing interfaces is almost exactly the same as google protocol buffers language. http://code.google.com/apis/protocolbuffers/docs/proto.html#simple Thanks Mark _______________________________________________ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list