Re: impending gdbus merge


On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 7:52 AM, Christian Persch <chpe gnome org> wrote:
>> Sure, if it turns out we need such variants we can always add them
> I actually used g_bus_watch_name() in a situation where I already
> had a GDBusConnection* available, so being able to pass it directly
> instead of by type would be good.

Actually, I needed this to implement gdbus(1)'s monitor verb, see

so it's in now!

>> With the way things work now, you are guaranteed to *never* get
>> callbacks if you call g_bus_unown_name() from the same thread from
>> where g_bus_own_name() was called....
> Ok, that makes sense :)
> The docs for g_bus_unown_name/unwatch_name/unwatch_proxy should
> definitely mention this.

Yeah, probably wouldn't hurt to make it explicit.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]