On 05/06/2014 03:52 AM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 09:21:37AM +0200, Sumit Bose wrote:
>> It's easy to call DBus from python, java and friends. There's no need to
>> pass that interaction through the bottleneck (albeit simple bottleneck)
>> that this library provides. At the current time this library is not
>> thread-safe, not loop-integratable, not-abi-extensible etc. It would
>> need to look significantly different to provide the foundation for what
>> you provide there. And why? The callers you suggest already have solid
>> ways to call DBus. It's sssd/tevent that doesn't.
> I agree with Stef here. Currently we have not planned bindings for those
> languages for the simple library. The intended users with the simple
> library are existing/legacy applications written in C which might be
> happier with a "classical" interface. Due to the nature of the languages
> I would expect that applications written in Ruby, Python or Java will
> find it more easy to use the DBUS API directly.
>
> bye,
> Sumit
+1 this is what we've envisioned from the start. The bindings would go
directly do the InfoPipe interface, that's also why we're spending so
much time on making them work as one would expect from a full DBus API,
with getsetters etc. But some users (like Nikos earlier on the list) just
wanted a very /simple/ get-key-value-pair API and this library can be it.
_______________________________________________
sssd-devel mailing list
sssd-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel You lost me.
Who is the consumer of the library then other than one apache module?
Do we have a design page where it is clearly spelled out whom we are
targeting with this effort?
--
Thank you,
Dmitri Pal
Sr. Engineering Manager IdM portfolio
Red Hat, Inc.