Please do not drop the CC, because someone else might also be interested
in our discussion.
On 07/25/2017 06:40 PM, Pierre Couderc wrote:
On 07/24/2017 03:18 PM, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> Hi Pierre,
> Hope that helps!
When I ask if GDbus is a good way, you answer me "probably yes". Thank
you very much.
As I tried to explain, it depends on what you want to do. Sometimes you
don't need a full fledge library and 10 abstraction to do simple stuff.
But sometimes this is what you want.
When I analyze the examples you give, for example "simple
have jumped on the "simple" word), I see it does not use GDbus.
Yes, the ncurses example avoids to pull in a lot of dependencies. But
then you have to handle all the low level stuff yourself. That can be
hard work. GDbus & friends do help to abstract a bit from the low level
bits. But the price is that you have to follow the GDbus way.
I am tempted to conclude that GDbus could be a monster very powerful
that can be avoided for simple or less simple tasks...
I can't really help you here, since you didn't tell us what you plan to
do. If you just want to monitor some signals from ConnMan, e.g.
offline/online, then you might take a short cut. But be aware you need
to handle all the async DBus messages, which means you need to have an
event loop etc. That is why GDbus is not so a bad option, because you
get all those low level handling done by the frameworks.
Since you are really starting working with DBus I highly recommend to
use a higher level framework. There are many really nasty pitfalls when
it comes to DBus, especially libdbus.
Is you feeling something like that ? At least for working with
Again, I can't help you here, no idea what you are trying to do.