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?