Le mardi 25 mai 2010 à 21:18 +0200, ZedTuX a écrit : > On Mon, 24 May 2010 21:32:46 +0200, Josselin Mouette <joss debian org> > wrote: > > Maybe I’m missing something here, but wouldn’t it be more generic to > > program such dock the other way? The board could expose a D-Bus > > interface, and plugins for each program would connect to it. All the > > difficulty, of course, if to have an interface that is generic enough > > and not too complex. > If you expose an interface to D-Bus, you don't need any kind of plugins. > Methods are published to the D-Bus server, and my app as a D-Bus client > connect to this server to call methods, to get properties or link himself > to signals. > > I think I've not really understand your suggestion maybe ? I’m afraid so. With your approach, you are asking each application you want to support to expose a suitable D-Bus API, and you will have to add support for each of them in a different way. I’m wondering whether you should instead expose a D-Bus API *in the dock*, and connect to it from plugins for each of the programs. This would make the whole thing simpler and more easily extensible, provided that you can design an appropriate D-Bus API. Cheers, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “If you behave this way because you are blackmailed by someone, `- […] I will see what I can do for you.” -- Jörg Schilling
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part