Re: Cleaning up owned dbus names on shutdown with glib

On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Daniel Drake wrote: > Let me know how I can debug this further - I can reproduce it trivially. Please use GLib bugzilla and the gdbus component for bug reports (it does sound like it's a GDBus bug) - otherwise it will just get lost. Thanks. David ___

Re: [GLIB] gdbusconnection: Add convenience _with_unix_fd_list variant for g_dbus_connection_emit_signal()

Hi, On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Dumez, Christophe wrote: > For your information, I also filed the following bug report: > https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=659465 I've commented on the bug. Btw, it's normally enough to just file bug reports - no need to send mail to the mailing lis

Re: GLib plans for next cycle

Hi, On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Ryan Lortie wrote: >> >  - glib_get_worker_context() >> >> s/glib/g/ ? glib_* sounds like it's for glib-internal-only use, which I >> don't see any reason for. It's definitely useful outside of glib. > > My original intention is that it *would* be glib-private

Re: gdbus-codegen

Hey, On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 3:44 AM, Xavier Claessens wrote: > Ok, so I can temporally change the default timeout like that: > > g_dbus_proxy_set_default_timeout(obj, 1000); > my_object_call_foo(obj); > g_dbus_proxy_set_default_timeout(obj, -1); Yup. Of course, if you use the proxy from more th

Re: Need approval to submit a patch

Hey, On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 7:09 AM, mar...@saepia.net wrote: >> First of all the main reason there isn't a function for this is that >> with the new gdbus-codegen(1) tool, this is automatically handled. >> That was always the plan and it's why pre-gdbus-codegen(1) is so >> low-level. > > I've l

Re: Need approval to submit a patch

Hi, On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 3:04 AM, mar...@saepia.net wrote: > Hi, > > I've never participated in such big open-source project as GTK is, > so I decided to ask before I will spend hours preparing the patch. Just file a bug in bugzilla - that's how the process normally works. > I extensively us

Re: gdbus-codegen

Hi, On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 8:57 AM, Xavier Claessens wrote: > Hi, > > I've discovered your gdbus-codegen utility in GLib 2.29.x. Those new > APIs looks really good, I can't wait for using them :D > > However I've a little question about generated _call_ methods, they hide > flags and timeout arg

Re: GTK and ATK

Hey, On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 4:14 AM, Piñeiro wrote: > So if in the future we change D-Bus for "MyAwesomeIPC" that would be totally > broken. On the current state, gail code, cally code and in general any ATK > implementation didn't require to be modified at all due those abstraction > layers. Th

Re: DBus Connection Timeout

Hi, On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 5:30 AM, scramwag wrote: > I am also trying to use g_dbus_connection_new_for_address_sync (...) to > connect > to remote dbus-daemon anonymously. Does anyone know if this issue is likely to > be fixed in the near future? Yes, this was fixed with this commit http://

Re: GLib: libffi dependency

Hi, On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 10:51 AM, Maarten Bosmans wrote: > Is it possible to make that an optional dependency? e.g. --with-libffi > or --enable-gdbus-codegen No, this dependency is part of the ABI, the newly added g_cclosure_marshal_generic() function will not work without libffi. I think a b

Re: Resource framework, relocatability (was Re: Glib: a Win32 discussion)

Hi, On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Alberto Ruiz wrote: > 2011/4/17 David Zeuthen : >> Honestly, I'm not that interested in solving the "make relocatable app >> providing plug-ins work without installing the app" use-case work >> outside Linux. >> >

Re: Resource framework, relocatability (was Re: Glib: a Win32 discussion)

Hi, On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 12:23 AM, Kean Johnston wrote: >> For simplicity, suppose that your all-in-one-files have the extension >> .glick. Suppose also that we have a per-user-per-system daemon >> watching (relevant parts of, such as only ~/Downloads, ~/Desktop and >> ~/Applications) $HOME fo

Re: Resource framework, relocatability (was Re: Glib: a Win32 discussion)

Hi, On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Alexander Larsson wrote: > Also, apps that consume such files are also hard to relocate. Take > nautilus for instance, it looks for extensions > in /usr/lib64/nautilus/extensions-3.0/, but if you relocate it, how does > extensions know where to install extensi

Higher-level D-Bus stuff

Hey, So GDBus stuff added in 2.26 didn't really include everything I wanted to do or that eggdbus did back then. Since then, I've been working on a) a code/doc-generation tool; and b) abstractions to efficiently work with many objects with many properties. Most of this work has been going in my g

Re: DBus Connection Timeout

Hi, On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 9:49 AM, Matthew Bucknall wrote: > Hi, > > I'm trying to use g_dbus_connection_new_for_address_sync() to connect > to message bus via TCP (dbus-daemon-proxy --session) as follows: > > connection = g_dbus_connection_new_for_address_sync ( >   "tcp:host=localhost,port=80

Re: BUG: GLib-Genmarshal-WARNING **: unknown type: VARIANT

Hi, On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 6:58 AM, sjs205 wrote: > I believe I have found a bug. Please use bugzilla for reporting bugs. David ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list

Re: Glib: a Win32 discussion

Hi, For the record, except for GApplication, nothing cross-platoform in GLib/GTK+ is using the GIO D-Bus routines (except for the GIO D-Bus routines themselves). I do agree that we should try avoiding using D-Bus except for Linux/Unix backends in the GLib/GTK+ stack itself. Btw, I wrote about GDB

Re: Type-safe G_CALLBACK

Hi, On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 7:55 AM, David Zeuthen wrote: > Hey, > > Is there any reason we don't have something similar to > G_DEFINE_CALLBACK() as described below in [1]? It seems like it would > increase type-safety a lot... OK, got around to doing this - see https:

Type-safe G_CALLBACK

Hey, Is there any reason we don't have something similar to G_DEFINE_CALLBACK() as described below in [1]? It seems like it would increase type-safety a lot... Thanks, David [1] : See [2] for compiler output #include /** * G_DEFINE_CALLBACK: * @function: The function to check * @function_t

Whitespace junk

Hi Murray, Regarding your commit http://git.gnome.org/browse/glib/commit/?id=c1a75ca783f602d3edf465c28918dac7ea57a1e7 most of the real changes seems to be drowning in whitespace junk... Please always check your patches before pushing to git.gnome.org. Thanks, David ___

Re: GDBus support on Win32 + other platforms (Was Re: GtkApplication and argc/arv)

Hey, On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Paul Davis wrote: > On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 10:00 AM, David Zeuthen wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Just for the record, there's no reason that GDBus cannot be made to >> work very nicely on Win32 or any other platform we care about.

GDBus support on Win32 + other platforms (Was Re: GtkApplication and argc/arv)

Hi, Just for the record, there's no reason that GDBus cannot be made to work very nicely on Win32 or any other platform we care about. GDBus (and D-Bus itself) was designed with this goal in mind. That is to say, it is possible to make a Win32 build of GLib where GDBus works as expect in both pee

Re: GtkApplication and argc/arv

Hey, On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Havoc Pennington wrote: > So upstream's advice is, don't restart, because apps won't handle it. > > If you want to fix all the apps, you can do so. There are no > dbus-daemon changes required. If you really wanted to handle the "dbus package got upgraded, le

Re: GDBus - Overriding org.freedesktop.DBus.Properties

Hi, On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Matthew Bucknall wrote: > To handle setting/getting of D-Bus properties asynchronously, the > documentation for GDBusConnection states: > '...simply register an object with the org.freedesktop.DBus.Properties D-Bus > interface using g_dbus_connection_register

Re: Doubts about GPeriodic

Hi, On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 6:30 PM, Havoc Pennington wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 5:47 PM, David Zeuthen wrote: >> Note that with GDBus the resulting GDBusMessage is actually being >> built in a separate (and private) thread - so in practice there is >&g

Re: Doubts about GPeriodic

Hi, On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Havoc Pennington wrote: > If you think > about something like the dbus main loop source, the dbus library > doesn't know what the heck is going to be coming in, and you can't > tune the main loop source depending on what kind of message it is. Note that with

Re: [PATCH] [RFC] Add g_*_deinit() API

Hi, This bug https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=627423 is an attempt at making GLib valgrind friendly. It actually makes the minimal GType program e.g. int main (int argc, char *argv[]) { g_type_init (); g_mem_shutdown(); } not leak any memory. The idea is that we can use thi

Re: GVolumeMonitor and Nautilus with mount --bind

Hi, On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 2:22 AM, Sebastian Geiger wrote: > I have filed bug 625552 I've asked for some more information in that bug. > which describes this problem. Since I have managed > to track the bug so far I would like to investigate it further, but I need > some additional informatio

Re: GDBus socket code ...

Hey, On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 9:43 AM, David Zeuthen wrote: > Perhaps move this feature/bug to bugzilla? Just as a follow-up, this discussion has moved to https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=626748 David ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list

Re: GDBus socket code ...

Hi, On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 9:19 AM, Michael Meeks wrote: > Hi David, > > On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 08:48 -0400, David Zeuthen wrote: >> (Wouldn't it have been better to file this in bugzilla?) > >        As you like; wrt. a multi-pronged discussion of several related issue

Re: GDBus socket code ...

Hi, (Wouldn't it have been better to file this in bugzilla?) On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 7:52 AM, Michael Meeks wrote: > Hi there, > >        After the mythically curious dbus socket code [ as Havoc says > ~"re-writing it would be easier than understanding it" ] - I was full of > enthusiasm for the

Re: Breaking things in git master...

Hey, On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 1:06 PM, Laurent Wan wrote: > Hello, > > Could you tell us how you do that : >> >> (personally, I follow glib master and other git trees via my >> RSS Reader). > > I  am interested. In Google Reader it's as simple as clicking "Add a Subscription" and then just pastin

Re: Breaking things in git master...

Hi, On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 3:11 AM, Richard Hughes wrote: > commit 32f2e9a85beedeea36ac7623f68f6eb878465d44 > Author: David Zeuthen > Date:   Fri Jun 11 15:45:18 2010 -0400 > ... >    Nuke g_bus_watch_proxy() since one can now more or less use GDBusProxy >    for this. > .

Re: gdbus-binding-tool

On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 7:42 PM, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: > On 05/19/2010 11:20 AM, David Zeuthen wrote: >> My plan is to actually port some real things (udisks, >> gnome-disk-utility, polkit, maybe the monitor part of gvfs) to use >> this code generator. > > Would be goo

gdbus-binding-tool

Hey, I've been working on a C code generator targeting the GDBus API. See http://people.freedesktop.org/~david/gdbus-binding-tool-20100519/ for the man page (which documents the tool) as well as GTK-Doc documented APIs of generated code for example interfaces. The tool is very similar to eggdbu

Re: impending gdbus merge

Hey, On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 7:52 AM, Christian Persch wrote: >> Sure, if it turns out we need such variants we can always add them > > I actually used g_bus_watch_name() in a situation where I already > had a GDBusConnection* available, so being able to pass it directly > instead of by type woul

Re: impending gdbus merge

Hey, On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Christian Persch wrote: > Hi; > > I have just a few remarks/questions after having ported a couple of > things to gdbus, and having looked at the API: Cool, thanks for doing this! > - g_bus_own_name has a _on_connection variant that directly takes a >  GDBu

Re: impending gdbus merge

Hey, On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen wrote: > On Mon, 2010-05-10 at 12:28 -0400, David Zeuthen wrote: >> Hey, >> >> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen >> wrote: >> > I have two questions though. Firstly

Re: impending gdbus merge

Hey, On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen wrote: > I have two questions though. Firstly; why is there no API for installing > and removing generic match rules? They seem like such a fundamental > thing in DBus, and there alreay is API for installing filter funcs > anyway. O

Re: impending gdbus merge

Hey, On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:37 PM, Shaun McCance wrote: > Some initial thoughts, after partially porting Yelp: > > * I think it's odd that this reuses GIOErrorEnum. It uses > values like G_IO_ERROR_CLOSED and G_IO_ERROR_EXISTS. The > documentation for these distinctly refers to files. Using > a

Re: impending gdbus merge

Hey Simon, On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 6:31 AM, Simon McVittie wrote: > On Thu, 06 May 2010 at 16:36:45 -0400, David Zeuthen wrote: >> Btw, for what it's worth, the way the symbol/struct names are set up >> right now is like this: GDBus*/g_dbus_* refers to routines that don&#

Re: impending gdbus merge

Hi again, Btw, for what it's worth, the way the symbol/struct names are set up right now is like this: GDBus*/g_dbus_* refers to routines that don't care whether the connection is to a message bus, while GBus*/g_bus_* refers to routines where the connection is known to be to a message bus. That's

Re: impending gdbus merge

Hey, On Thu, 2010-05-06 at 22:11 +0200, Torsten Schoenfeld wrote: > As far as I can see from the headers, there seem to be two new > namespaces: GDBus/g_dbus_ and GBus/g_bus_. Judging from > , GDBus seems to > be the low-level API, while GB

Re: Color managed GtkImage

On Tue, 2010-01-05 at 13:44 +, Richard Hughes wrote: > Now, Matthias has already said that he's not keen on a lcms dep for > GTK, (which I understand) but would adding the functionality to > GtkImage and registering an extension point be a wise thing to do? In > this case we add a lcms module (

Re: GDBus API/usage questions

Hey Travis, I've been on vacation the past two weeks so my reply is a bit delayed. On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 11:57 -0800, Travis Reitter wrote: > Hi David, > > I'm porting e-d-s's libebook from dbus-glib to gdbus and I've run into > a couple confusing bits of GDBus: > > * g_dbus_connection_bus_get(

Re: GDBus in gio? [was Re: Minutes of the GTK+ Team Meeting - 2009-11-10]

On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 14:23 +0100, nf2 wrote: > Hmm - i still wonder how many milliseconds putting everything into > libgio.so rather than having three separate libraries will really safe > you. While symbol resolution is important, I actually don't think it's the main reason we want everything in

Re: GDBus in gio? [was Re: Minutes of the GTK+ Team Meeting - 2009-11-10]

On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 16:37 +0200, Andrew W. Nosenko wrote: > Then yet another question: why do you think that all applications, > which linked with gio are need dbus and, therefore, would to be linked > with it anyway? GIO is, in effect, already linking to libdbus.so if you have GVfs installed -

Re: GVariant support for Unix fds (Was Re: GDBus/GVariant plans for next GLib release)

On Wed, 2009-11-11 at 10:42 -0500, Ryan Lortie wrote: > On Wed, 2009-11-11 at 09:31 -0500, David Zeuthen wrote: > > Should probably define an abstract GDBusHandleSet interface and then > > have a concrete GDBusUnixFdSet class (and possibly a GDBusWin32HandleSet > > too) imple

Re: GVariant support for Unix fds (Was Re: GDBus/GVariant plans for next GLib release)

On Mon, 2009-11-09 at 11:29 -0500, Ryan Lortie wrote: > > Hmm, I don't like this approach. It means you'd have to pass this > > GDBusFDSet object around in code you use to build/parse the GVariant. In > > particular, your proposed GTypeSerializer would need support for it. > > That's problematic be

Re: GDBus/GVariant plans for next GLib release

On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 10:06 +0100, Alexander Larsson wrote: > > Yeah, I guess that's a reasonable thing to add. How about? > > > > gboolean > > g_dbus_connection_lookup_object (GDBusConnection *connection, > > const gchar *object_path, > >

Re: GDBus/GVariant plans for next GLib release

Hey Alex, On Fri, 2009-11-06 at 21:05 +0100, Alexander Larsson wrote: > On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 21:34 -0400, David Zeuthen wrote: > > > http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~david/gdbus-standalone/ > > I just read through this for basic review, and I must say that I like > it.

Re: GVariant support for Unix fds (Was Re: GDBus/GVariant plans for next GLib release)

Hey Ryan, Sorry for the lag, On Sat, 2009-10-31 at 17:27 -0400, Ryan Lortie wrote: > On Tue, 2009-10-20 at 11:17 -0400, David Zeuthen wrote: > > So how about something like 1. and 2. below? We'd put > > > > g_dbus_connect

Re: GDBus API Questions; was: GDBus/GVariant plans for next GLib release

Hey Mikkel, Sorry for not replying sooner! On Wed, 2009-10-28 at 21:23 +0100, Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen wrote: > >> Attached is a series of patches (0001 should be identical to my > >> previous) implementing what you describe, except adding the gboolean > >> enumerated arg to @introspect and @dis

Re: GDBus API Questions; was: GDBus/GVariant plans for next GLib release

Hey Mikkel, On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 23:52 +0100, Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen wrote: > > I just looked over the newly introduced > > g_dbus_connection_register_subtree() and related data structures, and > > I think it will fit very nicely with what I am going to need. All in > > all it looks really swe

Re: GVariant support for Unix fds (Was Re: GDBus/GVariant plans for next GLib release)

On Thu, 2009-10-15 at 14:02 -0400, Ryan Lortie wrote: > On Thu, 2009-10-15 at 12:38 -0400, David Zeuthen wrote: > > Yeah, I think we need to support this from the get-go. > > > > Anyway, at the end of the day, UNIX fds are just integers so if you > > require that user

Re: GDBus/GVariant: well-known vs unique names

On Thu, 2009-10-15 at 13:31 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 at 21:34:26 -0400, David Zeuthen wrote: > > - Ideally make insane things impossible to do > > > >- e.g. only allow proxy creation for unique bus names - not > > well-known names. I

GVariant support for Unix fds (Was Re: GDBus/GVariant plans for next GLib release)

On Thu, 2009-10-15 at 10:54 -0400, Ryan Lortie wrote: > >2. GVariant doesn't yet handle the new 'h' type (e.g. unix fd) > > Holy crap! This is insane! I had no idea that this was going on > upstream -- I might have had something to say about it. > > It seems kind of unfortunate that the DBu

Message-based API vs signal/method-based API (Was Re: GDBus/GVariant plans for next GLib release)

On Thu, 2009-10-15 at 10:54 -0400, Ryan Lortie wrote: > >The API does not expose a GDBusMessage type since that would cause > >unwanted API that would assist in using the API as a whole in a > >wrong way (e.g. exposing on-wire details like message headers > >can be nasty). Instead,

GDBus extension points (Was Re: GDBus/GVariant plans for next GLib release)

On Thu, 2009-10-15 at 10:54 -0400, Ryan Lortie wrote: > > - Make the code available in libgio (perhaps with the libdbus-1 using > >implementation in e.g. GVfs through GIOExtensionPoint - maybe not > >worth the effort) > > This would have the advantage of forcing a good design upon us -- t

Re: GDBus API Questions; was: GDBus/GVariant plans for next GLib release

Hey Mikkel, On Thu, 2009-10-15 at 08:24 +0200, Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen wrote: > * Can I register a GDBusInterfaceVTable without registering an > object? The use case I have in mind is something akin to dynamically > spawning objects on the server side when messages are send to objects > under a

GDBus/GVariant plans for next GLib release

Hey, At the GNOME summit this weekend, Ryan Lortie, Matthias Clasen, Will Thompson and myself had a hallway conversation about how to get D-Bus functionality into the GLib stack. This mail is an attempt at summarizing what we talked about. (Unfortunately the scheduled talk on the summit for GLib

Re: Speeding up thumbnail generation (like multi threaded). Thoughts please.

On Wed, 2009-09-30 at 17:51 +0100, Ross Burton wrote: > On Wed, 2009-09-30 at 12:32 -0400, David Zeuthen wrote: > > (Btw, this infrastructure is not specific to the gphoto2:// GVfs > > backend; any GVfs backend can use it - say, a Flickr backend). > > Bad example, download

Re: Speeding up thumbnail generation (like multi threaded). Thoughts please.

On Wed, 2009-09-30 at 16:07 +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote: > Another thumbnailing performance trick is to use thumbnails in EXIF > data, which many cameras add, if availible. FWIW, we do this in the gphoto2:// GVfs backend. Browsing through a USB connected camera in Nautilus is really fast these

Re: libeggdbus v. libdbus-glib

On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 15:04 +, Colin Walters wrote: > On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 1:58 PM, David Zeuthen wrote: > > > > Yes, EggDBus only uses the mainloop integration from dbus-glib. Yes, > > there's a reason for why this is so. Yes, the explanation is in the > >

Re: libeggdbus v. libdbus-glib

On Thu, 2009-09-17 at 12:18 +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote: > You wrote: > > * From: David Zeuthen > > * To: gtk-devel-list gnome org > > * Subject: EggDBus > > * Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 21:48:25 -0500 > > > > Hey, > > > > For the past 5 week

Re: [patch] constify g_simple_async_result_set_from_error

On Wed, 2009-09-02 at 20:42 +0200, Sven Neumann wrote: > On Wed, 2009-09-02 at 14:28 -0400, David Zeuthen wrote: > > > Mmmm, wouldn't this break the API? E.g. cause compilation of existing > > apps to spew warnings. If so, we can't do it. > > How is the introdu

Re: [patch] constify g_simple_async_result_set_from_error

On Wed, 2009-09-02 at 19:17 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote: > In PackageKit, I have to explicitly cast in my finish function: > > static void > pk_package_sack_merge_state_finish (PkPackageSackState *state, const > GError *error) > { > ... > g_simple_async_result_set_from_error (state->

Re: Speeding up thumbnail generation (like multi threaded). Thoughts please.

On Fri, 2009-08-28 at 23:15 +0200, Mark wrote: > I haven't done io profiling but i did calculate the disc usage for > those 1927 files. and every benchmark was WAY below what my hdd could > handle (Spinpoint F1 1TB hdd and it can handle roughly 100MB/sec). Uhm, wait, that's only true for sequentia

Re: GCancellable hints

On Thu, 2009-08-27 at 08:09 +, Benjamin Otte wrote: > In an async program, the > same cancellable is often used for multiple calls at the same time. Be careful, however, to avoid using the same cancellable for multiple simultaneous operations. The docs clearly state One GCancellable can be

Re: glist manipulation and reference count

On Fri, 2009-05-15 at 19:42 +0200, Sven Neumann wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 2009-05-14 at 20:47 -0700, walty wrote: > > > However, one thing that surprised me is that, when I do "g_list_append" or > > "g_list_prepend", it does not automatically add the reference count of the > > stored GObject (unli

Re: GVariant for prez!

On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 19:12 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > You're clearly not happy with the representations chosen by dbus-glib > (and I agree that they're not so good - they rarely match an existing > API, and they don't match the real D-Bus data model either). > > I hope I'm misunderstanding yo

Re: GVariant for prez!

On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 13:26 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > On Sat, 02 May 2009 at 13:02:39 -0400, David Zeuthen wrote: > >My view is that it's not really realistic to do this, I think it's > >a convenient thing that I can get/pass well-known data-types like >

Re: GVariant for prez!

On Sat, 2009-05-02 at 13:35 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 1:02 PM, David Zeuthen wrote: > > o It seems like you (or Simon or both) expect GVariant to be the only > > container type in town for C bindings for D-Bus (as per the D-Bus >

Re: GVariant for prez!

Hey Ryan, I took a closer look at GVariant today so here are some more comments, take them, leave them or do whatever you want with them ;-) Most of these comments are general but, for other readers, it might help to also read the conversations in http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57957

Re: GLib plans for the next cycle

On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 18:31 +0200, Christian Dywan wrote: > What about using "xdg-open" if GVfs is not available OR if gconf is > not available? That's a tiny script that can be easily installed > anywhere, even on less modern boxes. That would give you a nice circular dependency if xdg-open(1) is

Re: glib dbus bindings notes

On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 13:19 -0500, David Zeuthen wrote: > Regarding your other comments, I largely agree with them and this mail > would be too long if I replied to all of them. > > So, to sum up, the main suggestions you are making are > > - Rework low-level bits of EggDBus

Re: GLib plans for the next cycle

On Sun, 2009-04-19 at 20:05 -0400, Allin Cottrell wrote: > On Sun, 19 Apr 2009, Havoc Pennington wrote: > > > On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Tim-Philipp Müller wrote: > > > You tell people not to worry. But many people clearly do seem to worry. > > > > Well, why don't these many people post a r

Re: GVariant for prez!

Hey Ryan, On Wed, 2009-04-08 at 10:17 -0400, Ryan Lortie wrote: > Hello Everyone! > > I'm proposing GVariant for inclusion in glib this cycle. > > I've created a 'gvariant' branch of glib and pushed it to the official > repository. > > For those who don't know what GVariant is, please see the

Re: GLib plans for the next cycle

On Fri, 2009-04-03 at 19:56 +0100, Will Thompson wrote: > I don't think that relying on having correct introspection data to > marshall messages is a sound idea for a DBus binding. The C > representation of an 'a{uas}' where the values are all the empty list > should contain all the information you

Re: GLib plans for the next cycle

On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 19:05 -0400, Ryan Lortie wrote: > Hi > > Matthias Clasen wrote: > > One thing that has been tossed around for a long time is that it would > > be really good to have DBus support on the Glib level. > > Agree strongly, but I'm not sure of the timing. A couple of people have

Re: Moving GLib and GTK+ to git

On Wed, 2009-04-01 at 08:43 +0200, Mike Massonnet wrote: > Except the 72 characters, cause you will really want a better terminal > instead. It's mostly a recommendation to enforce a short summary, but > even 100 characters should be fine. It's not so much about the terminal; it's about the fact

Re: Moving GLib and GTK+ to git

On Tue, 2009-03-31 at 17:03 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote: > On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: > > On 03/31/2009 03:50 PM, David Zeuthen wrote: > >> > >> Personally I prefer non-capital and no periods; it makes the output of > >> 'git

Re: Moving GLib and GTK+ to git

On Tue, 2009-03-31 at 15:58 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: > On 03/31/2009 03:50 PM, David Zeuthen wrote: > > Personally I prefer non-capital and no periods; it makes the output of > > 'git log |git shortlog' nicer to look at (see [1] for an example) but > > maybe

Re: Moving GLib and GTK+ to git

On Tue, 2009-03-31 at 15:05 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote: > Commit messages: Here are some recommendations that I think meet our needs: It would be nice to have hooks to enforce this in the master repo at git.gnome.org. Thoughts? > Working with branches: > As Kristian explained to me, there are t

Re: Moving GLib and GTK+ to git

preference on whether it should be non-capital/capital. Personally I prefer non-capital and no periods; it makes the output of 'git log |git shortlog' nicer to look at (see [1] for an example) but maybe that's just me. I think capital letters would work nice here too; trailing periods w

Re: glib dbus bindings notes

Hey, thanks for taking a look. On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 21:03 -0500, Havoc Pennington wrote: > Hi, > > Finally, maybe it's useful to go more concrete looking at eggdbus and > mentioning some of the specific stuff in there. I know it's a lot of > comments but I'm just giving my opinion, take it for

Re: GLib plans for the next cycle

On Wed, 2009-02-11 at 09:56 +, Ross Burton wrote: > On Wed, 2009-02-11 at 01:07 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote: > > - Where do we put this ? Inside libgobject (since it is more or less > > DBus bindings for GObject) or inside libgio (since it uses the GIO > > async > > pattern and some utility cl

Re: GLib plans for the next cycle

Hi, On Wed, 2009-02-11 at 01:07 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote: > A while ago David put forward his work on EggDbus and wrote a very > detailed mail [1] with arguments for why it would be very good to have > DBus support on the Glib level, why dbus-glib is not good enough, and > how his EggDbus bind

Re: Asyncronous life helper (Was: EggDBus)

On Sat, 2008-12-27 at 20:35 +0100, Alexander Larsson wrote: > On Sat, 2008-12-27 at 04:21 -0500, Freddie Unpenstein wrote: > > This is a side-topic, raised by developments in handling DBus, but > > something I feel is worth asking... Is there any mechanism for making > > working with asynchronous s

Re: Asyncronous life helper (Was: EggDBus)

On Sat, 2008-12-27 at 04:21 -0500, Freddie Unpenstein wrote: > This is a side-topic, raised by developments in handling DBus, but > something I feel is worth asking... Is there any mechanism for making > working with asynchronous stuff easier? I recently filed this bug http://bugzilla.gnome.org/s

Re: EggDBus

On Fri, 2008-12-26 at 22:39 +0100, Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen wrote: > > So you'd need to tag (using gtk-doc annotations) what methods, > properties and signals are to be exported via D-Bus. But it > would need > to be complicated > > The idea was more in th

Re: EggDBus

Hey Bastien, On Fri, 2008-12-26 at 22:13 +, Bastien Nocera wrote: > My personal wishlist for D-Bus is mostly on the client side: > - dbus_g_object_register_marshaller() is hate. The marshalling code > should be using libffi so it just works (same holds true for native > GObject as well). > - d

Re: EggDBus

On Tue, 2008-12-23 at 10:12 +0100, Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen wrote: > Hehe, I think it would be stretch to call you that. After all you do > produce tonnes of code :-) > > I a while ago I started hacking on a generic dynamic method invocation > framework for glib: http://live.gnome.org/MikkelKamst

Re: EggDBus

On Tue, 2008-12-23 at 10:53 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote: > On Mon, 2008-12-22 at 11:01 -0500, David Zeuthen wrote: > > > you'll have to use the supplied QUERY_INTERFACE macro for each of the > > generated interfaces to get an interface proxy. For example > &g

Re: EggDBus

On Mon, 2008-12-22 at 15:42 -0500, Dan Winship wrote: > David Zeuthen wrote: > > Yeah. I think XML-RPC types can largely be considered a subset of the > > D-Bus types. For the datetime we could add an extra ISO8601 data type or > > something (don't think GTimeVal is enoug

Re: EggDBus

On Mon, 2008-12-22 at 11:29 -0500, Dan Winship wrote: > David Zeuthen wrote: > > This mail is already too long but there's one more thing. > > Yeah. Still digesting. But... > > I have not done all that much with D-Bus, but one thing I noticed while > doing the lib

Re: EggDBus

On Mon, 2008-12-22 at 12:30 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote: > This sounds wonderful. I have a couple of questions, though I am not > very experienced with D-Bus. > > > o Each D-Bus interface maps to a GInterface > > So you can get a GSomething object that is a proxy for D-Bus object, > which implem

EggDBus

Hey, For the past 5 weeks or so, I've been working on a new (as compared to dbus-glib) D-Bus binding for GObject. The work on this has finally reached a stage where the code sufficiently complete and documented so I thought I'd send some mail describing it. The code is here http://cgit.freedeskt

Re: Theme patriation

On Sun, 2008-10-26 at 18:38 -0400, Thomas Thurman wrote: > Do you think this is a good plan? Yes. I think making the window decoration code available to apps is a Good Thing(tm); without that it's going to be hard for enterprising app writers (e.g. those who dare to question the establishment) to

Moving useful stuff into the core toolkit (Was Re: Removing libgnome* from nautilus)

(gah, one more time, this time with the right domain.. please ignore the previous mail. sorry) (adding gtk-devel-list to the Cc) On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 14:22 +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote: > I just branched nautilus because I want to work on a small project I > have. I want to remove all uses of

  1   2   >