[Dev] [Cynara] Async admin API proposal

Aleksander Zdyb a.zdyb at partner.samsung.com
Mon Aug 25 06:32:15 GMT 2014

On 22.08.2014 20:16, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> What is currently proposed just makes the number of changes to
> dbus-daemon larger, with no practical advantage. Everyone is welcome to
> have a look at the work I started on dbus-daemon and verify that
> statement if you don't take my word for it.

As Zofia listed most of advantages of v2 solution in her previous posts,
I would just politely ask, if we're working on async API for Cynara's 
or patching dbus-daemon?

As this thread grows longer, there are more and more reasoning
for breaking a quite cleanly designed API because of dbus's inabilities
of different sorts.

If this is the point, then alright, we can release complicated and
error-prone API for our users just to make dbus-daemon maintainers'
life easier.

And to calling cynara_async_process() after cynara_async_check():
It's not a standard case. It's just proposed workaround for synchronous
clients wanting to hack around with asynchronous API not designed
for them. And this should be their concern to do it well enough.

Aleksander Zdyb
Samsung R&D Institute Poland
Samsung Electronics

More information about the Dev mailing list