[Dev] [Cynara] Async admin API proposal

Patrick Ohly patrick.ohly at intel.com
Mon Aug 25 06:51:42 GMT 2014

On Mon, 2014-08-25 at 08:32 +0200, Aleksander Zdyb wrote:
> 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 
> clients
> or patching dbus-daemon?

You are designing an API whose primary purpose at this point is to be
used in dbus-daemon.

If there are other users of it, then feel free to get their feedback.
You have mine and I don't have anything else technical to add, besides a
small rant below.

> 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.

Just to clarify, I'm not the dbus maintainer, neither upstream nor of
the Tizen package. I just helped out because it seemed to be needed.

<rant> You seem to think that it should be the D-Bus developer's job to
adapt D-Bus to the Cynara API, not the other way around. I'm sorry to
disappoint you, but D-Bus is the established project here which doesn't
care about what Tizen does, while Cynara is the newcomer which will not
work well without D-Bus support. D-Bus is in maintenance, Cynara under
active development. So wouldn't it make sense to ensure that the
combination works by adapting *Cynara* and minimizing changes to D-Bus?

Best Regards, Patrick Ohly

The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.

More information about the Dev mailing list