Re: Skype and DBus: should my client library act as a server?
Julien JPK <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.freedesktop.dbus |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 18/03/15 20:33, Simon McVittie wrote: > On 18/03/15 20:00, Julien JPK wrote: >> - Start sending my requests from another thread. > > Threads! You had a problem, you solved it with threads, and now you have > two problems working in parallel :-) > > libdbus suffers greatly from having to have its own > a-bit-like-GLib-but-not-as-good "make C non-horrible" layer. If you are > not under constraints similar to dbus-daemon, I recommend avoiding libdbus. When I read the DBus documentation, I thought that the "very low-level" part of libdbus was the "not recommended" piece, but I did not see that maintainers were actually discouraging the use of the entire API... While the DBus website clearly states: "It should be noted that the low-level implementation is not primarily designed for application authors to use." ... I thought that library developers could still be an exception to the rule: "Rather, it is a basis for binding authors and a reference for reimplementations." Do you mean that libdbus should only be used by developers who work very closely to DBus itself (developing the daemon, and other key components) ? Does it mean that application developers are somehow "obliged" to rely at least on GLib/GDBus (since all other bindings are even more "high-level") ? I'm a bit surprised to see that there is no "approved" way to program with DBus while staying at a reasonably low level of abstraction... -- Julien Kritter (PGP key 0xC3075A58) [email protected] _______________________________________________ dbus mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dbus