On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 11:11 AM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> On Mi, 2012-01-25 at 02:32 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
>> This was done yesterday (or 2 days ago now). It my be good to give a
>> little more detailed update at this point.
>
> Thanks, that's very useful.
>
>> With the above changes, the initial
On Mi, 2012-01-25 at 02:32 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
> This was done yesterday (or 2 days ago now). It my be good to give a
> little more detailed update at this point.
Thanks, that's very useful.
> With the above changes, the initialization of and communication with
> the helper binary seems to w
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Chris Kühl wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 9:23 PM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
>> On Fr, 2012-01-20 at 21:21 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote:
>>> On Fr, 2012-01-20 at 10:53 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
>>> > On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Patrick Ohly
>>> > wrote:
>>> > > On
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 9:23 PM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> On Fr, 2012-01-20 at 21:21 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote:
>> On Fr, 2012-01-20 at 10:53 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Patrick Ohly
>> > wrote:
>> > > On Mi, 2012-01-18 at 16:55 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
>> > >> I'
On Fr, 2012-01-20 at 21:21 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> On Fr, 2012-01-20 at 10:53 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Patrick Ohly
> > wrote:
> > > On Mi, 2012-01-18 at 16:55 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
> > >> I've renamed my branch to concurrent-sync-sessions and rebased
On Fr, 2012-01-20 at 10:53 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> > On Mi, 2012-01-18 at 16:55 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
> >> I've renamed my branch to concurrent-sync-sessions and rebased onto
> >> master. I'm now going through and making required changes
On Fr, 2012-01-20 at 10:53 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> > On Mi, 2012-01-18 at 16:55 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
> >> I've renamed my branch to concurrent-sync-sessions and rebased onto
> >> master. I'm now going through and making required changes
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> On Mi, 2012-01-18 at 16:55 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
>> I've renamed my branch to concurrent-sync-sessions and rebased onto
>> master. I'm now going through and making required changes to get tests
>> to work.
>
> Note that I pushed another cha
On Mi, 2012-01-18 at 16:55 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
> I've renamed my branch to concurrent-sync-sessions and rebased onto
> master. I'm now going through and making required changes to get tests
> to work.
Note that I pushed another change onto a new "signal-handling" branch.
This affects you beca
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Chris Kühl wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
>> On Mo, 2012-01-16 at 17:19 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote:
>>> After also fixing the handling of asynchronous method
>>> implementation in GDBus GIO, local sync works with it.
>>
>> After fixin
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> On Mo, 2012-01-16 at 17:19 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote:
>> After also fixing the handling of asynchronous method
>> implementation in GDBus GIO, local sync works with it.
>
> After fixing some more regressions the D-Bus tests ran well
> (http://
On Mo, 2012-01-16 at 17:19 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> After also fixing the handling of asynchronous method
> implementation in GDBus GIO, local sync works with it.
After fixing some more regressions the D-Bus tests ran well
(http://syncev.meego.com/2012-01-17-13-27_testing_gio-gdbus_dbus/), so
On Fr, 2012-01-13 at 14:29 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> commit 22b8e3286451b43ac9914eafde725e5d8a45fe27
> Author: Patrick Ohly
> Date: Fri Jan 13 14:19:51 2012 +0100
>
> GDBus GIO: implemented client/server
>
> This pretty much follows the example from:
>
> http://developer.gn
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Chris Kühl wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
>> On So, 2012-01-15 at 12:09 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Patrick Ohly
>>> wrote:
>>> > On Mi, 2012-01-11 at 14:59 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
>>> >> This wi
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> On So, 2012-01-15 at 12:09 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
>> > On Mi, 2012-01-11 at 14:59 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
>> >> This will very much be an issue with GIO GDBus as it uses the same
>> >
On So, 2012-01-15 at 12:09 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> > On Mi, 2012-01-11 at 14:59 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
> >> This will very much be an issue with GIO GDBus as it uses the same
> >> mechanism. Looking that the souce of libdbus and gdbus lea
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> On Mi, 2012-01-11 at 14:59 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
>> This will very much be an issue with GIO GDBus as it uses the same
>> mechanism. Looking that the souce of libdbus and gdbus leads me to
>> believe using signals on a non-bus connection do
On Mo, 2012-01-09 at 18:59 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
> > Chris, do you want me to take a stab at adapting GDBus GIO to the
> recent
> > GDBus libdbus changes (local D-Bus connection, API
> > changes/improvements)?
> >
>
> In order to avoid distraction, I was intending to do this only once
> concurr
On Mi, 2012-01-11 at 14:59 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
> This will very much be an issue with GIO GDBus as it uses the same
> mechanism. Looking that the souce of libdbus and gdbus leads me to
> believe using signals on a non-bus connection doesn't really make
> sense. I just use method calls in this
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Chris Kühl wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
>> On Mo, 2012-01-09 at 18:59 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
>>> > commit bf293d0b10e60d3c269a41b4f2b51aea0c54943b
>>> > Author: Patrick Ohl
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> On Mo, 2012-01-09 at 18:59 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
>> > commit bf293d0b10e60d3c269a41b4f2b51aea0c54943b
>> > Author: Patrick Ohly
>> > Date: Mon Jan 9 14:38:49 2012 +0100
>> >
>> >
On Mo, 2012-01-09 at 18:59 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> > commit bf293d0b10e60d3c269a41b4f2b51aea0c54943b
> > Author: Patrick Ohly
> > Date: Mon Jan 9 14:38:49 2012 +0100
> >
> >fork/exec: implemented stop() and kill()
> >
> >Sending t
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> On Mi, 2011-12-21 at 15:44 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote:
>> On Mi, 2011-12-21 at 14:47 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote:
>> > On Mi, 2011-12-21 at 14:17 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
>> > > Overall it looks like it makes sense.
>> >
>> > Good. I already went
On Mi, 2011-12-21 at 15:44 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> On Mi, 2011-12-21 at 14:47 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> > On Mi, 2011-12-21 at 14:17 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
> > > Overall it looks like it makes sense.
> >
> > Good. I already went ahead and have a working implementation now, too.
>
> I pu
On Mi, 2011-12-21 at 14:47 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> On Mi, 2011-12-21 at 14:17 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
> > Overall it looks like it makes sense.
>
> Good. I already went ahead and have a working implementation now, too.
I pushed the complete implementation to the "fork-exec" branch. If (or
w
On Mi, 2011-12-21 at 14:17 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
> Overall it looks like it makes sense.
Good. I already went ahead and have a working implementation now, too.
> A couple questions though.
>
> * Where would you be using g_child_watch here? I'm assuming it would
> be set up internally in ForkE
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> On Mo, 2011-12-19 at 10:57 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
>> > I have that same example working based on GDBus + libdbus. What I don't
>> > like about it is that the connection is based on lis
On Di, 2011-12-20 at 15:16 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
> Should this not be the following?
>
> template<> struct dbus_traits : public dbus_traits_base
Hmm, it compiled okay as I had it in my patch. Probably no code was ever
expanded which checked for dbus_traits_base::asynchronous. Will fix
that.
-
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> On Mo, 2011-12-19 at 16:47 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Patrick Ohly
>> wrote:
>> > So perhaps the parameter for that can be removed and made a static
>> > choice in the dbus_get_bus_connection() implementati
On Mo, 2011-12-19 at 10:57 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> > I have that same example working based on GDBus + libdbus. What I don't
> > like about it is that the connection is based on listen() + connect().
> > This makes it harder for the parent
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> On Mo, 2011-12-19 at 16:47 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Patrick Ohly
>> wrote:
>> > So perhaps the parameter for that can be removed and made a static
>> > choice in the dbus_get_bus_connection() implementati
On Mo, 2011-12-19 at 16:47 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> > So perhaps the parameter for that can be removed and made a static
> > choice in the dbus_get_bus_connection() implementations?
> >
>
> I'm about half way through test-dbus.py and thing
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> On Mo, 2011-12-19 at 10:57 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
>> > Note that your example code closed the
>> > connection while the rest of SyncEvolution didn't. This might be
>> > something that
On Mo, 2011-12-19 at 10:57 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> > Note that your example code closed the
> > connection while the rest of SyncEvolution didn't. This might be
> > something that still needs to be fixed.
> >
>
> It seems that this is depe
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> On Mi, 2011-12-14 at 16:52 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
>> I just looked but don't see anything. If you are referring to setting
>> up a peer-to-peer dbus connection, that's done using the (G)DBusServer
>> class. There is an example at [1].
>
> I
On Mi, 2011-12-14 at 16:52 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
> I just looked but don't see anything. If you are referring to setting
> up a peer-to-peer dbus connection, that's done using the (G)DBusServer
> class. There is an example at [1].
I have that same example working based on GDBus + libdbus. What
On Mi, 2011-12-14 at 16:52 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> > On Mi, 2011-12-14 at 15:44 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
> >> >> Ok, I'm looking into this. The original plan was that Step 1 was a
> >> >> dependency of Step 2 but I've been reconsidering my
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> On Mi, 2011-12-14 at 15:44 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
>> >> Ok, I'm looking into this. The original plan was that Step 1 was a
>> >> dependency of Step 2 but I've been reconsidering my approach. I'll
>> >> look into what you're asking and get ba
On Mi, 2011-12-14 at 15:44 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
> >> Ok, I'm looking into this. The original plan was that Step 1 was a
> >> dependency of Step 2 but I've been reconsidering my approach. I'll
> >> look into what you're asking and get back to you soon.
> >
> > I can also do that part myself, if
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> On Mi, 2011-12-14 at 13:27 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
>> > On Mo, 2011-12-05 at 12:12 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
>> >> I plan to do this work in 3 steps:
>> >>
>> >> 1) The first step, which
On Mi, 2011-12-14 at 13:27 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> > On Mo, 2011-12-05 at 12:12 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
> >> I plan to do this work in 3 steps:
> >>
> >> 1) The first step, which I've started, is to decouple the session and
> >> server fro
On Mi, 2011-12-14 at 13:27 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> > On Mo, 2011-12-05 at 12:12 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
> >> I plan to do this work in 3 steps:
> >>
> >> 1) The first step, which I've started, is to decouple the session and
> >> server fro
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> On Mo, 2011-12-05 at 12:12 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
>> I plan to do this work in 3 steps:
>>
>> 1) The first step, which I've started, is to decouple the session and
>> server from each other and also modify objects that require both the
>> se
On Mo, 2011-12-05 at 12:12 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
> I plan to do this work in 3 steps:
>
> 1) The first step, which I've started, is to decouple the session and
> server from each other and also modify objects that require both the
> session and server objects as needed. Once this is done the se
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-12-05 at 12:12 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:22 PM, Patrick Ohly
>> wrote:
>> > * logging:
>> > * the main syncevo-dbus-server process should use syslog
>> > logging for i
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-12-05 at 12:12 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:22 PM, Patrick Ohly
>> wrote:
>> > Here are some requirements for "sync in forked process":
>> > * should be disabled when running outside of the D-Bus da
On Mon, 2011-12-05 at 12:12 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:22 PM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> > * logging:
> > * the main syncevo-dbus-server process should use syslog
> >logging for its own messages, without redirecting
> >stdout/
On Mon, 2011-12-05 at 12:12 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:22 PM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> > Here are some requirements for "sync in forked process":
> > * should be disabled when running outside of the D-Bus daemon
> >(syncevolution command line in non-daemon mode
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:22 PM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Chris is going to work on running syncs inside a process forked from the
> main syncevo-dbus-server. Before diving into the planning and
> implementation, let me outline the background.
>
> At the moment, syncevo-dbus-server is one
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 8:40 AM, Gapps + local IMAP
wrote:
> On Mo, 2011-11-28 at 18:00 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
>> > No, that's what I was looking for. When you say "command line argument",
>> > does that mean that there will be an exec() i
On Mo, 2011-11-28 at 18:00 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> > No, that's what I was looking for. When you say "command line argument",
> > does that mean that there will be an exec() involved? Would that start
> > the same binary or something else?
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> On Mi, 2011-11-16 at 13:55 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:22 PM, Patrick Ohly
>> wrote:
>> > Here are some requirements for "sync in forked process":
>> > * should be disabled when running outside of the D-Bus da
On Mi, 2011-11-16 at 13:55 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:22 PM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> > Here are some requirements for "sync in forked process":
> > * should be disabled when running outside of the D-Bus daemon
> >(syncevolution command line in non-daemon mode,
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:22 PM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Chris is going to work on running syncs inside a process forked from the
> main syncevo-dbus-server. Before diving into the planning and
> implementation, let me outline the background.
>
> At the moment, syncevo-dbus-server is one
Hello!
Chris is going to work on running syncs inside a process forked from the
main syncevo-dbus-server. Before diving into the planning and
implementation, let me outline the background.
At the moment, syncevo-dbus-server is one process (when ignoring local
sync for a second) which handles D-Bu
55 matches
Mail list logo
