On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 11:02:39AM +0100, Pavel Březina wrote:
> On 01/06/2015 11:10 AM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 02:26:22PM +0100, Pavel Březina wrote:
>>>
https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/wiki/DesignDocs/DBusResponder
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>> I have take the following tikcet that is about implementing D-Bus calls for
>>> domains, users and groups. I have some questions.
>>>
>>>
https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/2150
>>>
>>> *List and Find methods interface*
>>> At this moment we implement all List* and Find* methods on
>>> /org/freedesktop/sssd/infopipe and org.freedesktop.sssd.infopipe interface.
>>>
>>> The patches I sent today enables having support for different interfaces on
>>> /path and /path/*, therefore we can implement the methods as:
>>>
>>> /infopipe/Users infopipe.Users.ListUsers()
>>> /infopipe/Users/$UID user specific methods and properties
>>>
>>> instead of:
>>> /infopipe infopipe.ListUsers()
>>> /infopipe/Users/$UID user specific methods and properties
>>>
>>> I think it make sense. Is this something we want?
>>
>> Yes, I like this suggestion better, too.
>
> Do we agree on the following interface schema? Or do you have other
> suggestions?
>
> /ifp/Users ifp.Users
> /ifp/Users/* ifp.Users.User
>
> Methods will drop 'Users' keyword. I.e. ifp.Users.List() instead of
> ifp.Users.ListUsers().
>
> I though about ifp.User for the subtree but I don't really like when
> interface name differs only in the ending 's'. That is quite error prone to
> me.
What about changing infopipe to ifp? Or is that a typo?
I just wanted to shorten the name for the purpose of this conversation
and avoid writing the whole org.freedesktop.sssd.infopipe. Sorry, I
thought its obvious.