http://bugzilla.moblin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6376
--- Comment #8 from yongsheng zhu <yongsheng.zhu(a)intel.com> 2009-12-12 01:48:47 PST
---
(In reply to comment #7)
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > Can we drop the wait() call and go fully asynchronous? When starting the
> > infoRequest(), register a callback that is called and then let responses be
> > handled inside the existing main loop handling.
> For password, the engine needs this password to generate syncML message and
> have to wait response, we have to let process wait for this. what if we want to
> this?
I don't know. So what this boils down to is prototyping the API and adding the
necessary calls to it in those places where we need to make info requests.
That'll expose weaknesses in the API.
Like you said, to be more flexible,
1) all APIs in DBusServer class should be asynchronous(maybe except wait)
2) necessary to provide a API to let callers poll and wait a response for
specific request
3) allow multiple info requests, that means DBusServer could handle many
request instead of one request pending at one time.
4) could use a InfoRequest to wrap a full request process, like Patrick
suggested.
5) check() is to give an opportunity to poll dbus events and check whether the
response for the specific request is ready.
--
Configure bugmail:
http://bugzilla.moblin.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are watching someone on the CC list of the bug.