NMSupplicantInterface PROP_CONNECTION_STATE not installed

2009-06-05 Thread Daniel Drake
Hi, The PROP_CONNECTION_STATE property on NMSupplicantInterface (src/supplicant-manager/nm-supplicant-interface.c) seems not to be installed through g_object_class_install_property(), hence is not really usable. I'm interested in it being a usable property so that I can attach a notify handler

Re: NMSupplicantInterface PROP_CONNECTION_STATE not installed

2009-06-05 Thread Daniel Drake
On Fri, 2009-06-05 at 11:26 +0100, Daniel Drake wrote: Hi, The PROP_CONNECTION_STATE property on NMSupplicantInterface (src/supplicant-manager/nm-supplicant-interface.c) seems not to be installed through g_object_class_install_property(), hence is not really usable. possible patch, compile

Re: NMSupplicantInterface PROP_CONNECTION_STATE not installed

2009-06-05 Thread Dan Williams
On Fri, 2009-06-05 at 12:07 +0100, Daniel Drake wrote: On Fri, 2009-06-05 at 11:26 +0100, Daniel Drake wrote: Hi, The PROP_CONNECTION_STATE property on NMSupplicantInterface (src/supplicant-manager/nm-supplicant-interface.c) seems not to be installed through

Re: NMSupplicantInterface PROP_CONNECTION_STATE not installed

2009-06-05 Thread Daniel Drake
On Fri, 2009-06-05 at 09:16 -0400, Dan Williams wrote: How about using the 'scanning' property instead? That's exactly what the 'scanning' property is for, and connection-state doesn't always reflect when the supplicant is actually scanning (ie, it won't back down from CONNECTED - SCANNING

Re: NMSupplicantInterface PROP_CONNECTION_STATE not installed

2009-06-05 Thread Dan Williams
On Fri, 2009-06-05 at 19:12 +0100, Daniel Drake wrote: On Fri, 2009-06-05 at 09:16 -0400, Dan Williams wrote: How about using the 'scanning' property instead? That's exactly what the 'scanning' property is for, and connection-state doesn't always reflect when the supplicant is actually

Re: NMSupplicantInterface PROP_CONNECTION_STATE not installed

2009-06-05 Thread Daniel Drake
On Fri, 2009-06-05 at 14:35 -0400, Dan Williams wrote: It really shouldn't; I was being conservative there. The 'scanning' property (assuming you have that supplicant patch which is now upstream and also available at [1]) should reflect the scanning state internally in the supplicant. OK,