Re: gnome-keyring Initial whack at dbus interfaces

[Stef Walter <stef-list memberwebs com>]

Michael Leupold wrote:
>>> On Wednesday 25 March 2009 04:50:22 Stef Walter wrote:
>> It'd be really awesome to keep the single secret per item as the only
>> secret in the system. Is there a case where this won't work?
> 
> I was just thinking about storing eg. username/password pairs where you want 
> to keep the password secret as well. How is this currently done in keyring? do 
> applications store the username as a field or inside the secret using some 
> special format? KWallet currently allows the storage of maps (string->string) 
> of secret values for that purpose (basically just a data-structure serialized 
> to a binary blob used as the secret).

Would it work to continue doing it this way? Is this the KWallet
default, or an optional thing?

FWIW, it's worth noting that in most protocols the user name is not (and
is not treated as) part of the secret.

>>> I quoted the wrong function. afaik this timeout will happen for every of
>>> the dbus methods you send with:
>>> "If -1 is passed for the timeout, a sane default timeout is used. -1 is
>>> typically the best value for the timeout for this reason, unless you want
>>> a very short or very long timeout. There is no way to avoid a timeout
>>> entirely, other than passing INT_MAX for the timeout to mean "very long
>>> timeout." libdbus clamps an INT_MAX timeout down to a few hours timeout
>>> though." (dbus_connection_send_with_reply)
>> Yes the dbus-daemon has its own timeout which is not controllable from a
>> client. However in reality, a couple hours delay could be acceptable for
>>  our various calls. Our timeouts are waiting for interaction from the
>> user and if the user doesn't respond for hours, then I think a timeout
>> is acceptable, no?
> 
> Yes, that can be worked around but there's some places you have to take care 
> of that. I was mentioning it because I had quite a time trying to fix the DBus 
> version of kwalletd (DCOP didn't have that issue afaik). It's possible but 
> it's no fun :)

Was that mainly because the clients used the default timeout?

Cheers,

Stef