Re: [SyncEvolution] syncevo-dbus-server and command line client
Nit-picking: if no support for D-Bus is compiled *into the command
line*, report one error ("support for --use-daemon not available in this
binary"?). That may or may not be the same as having compiled the
daemon. If the daemon fails to start, report that error.
Yes, you are right. Because command line and dbus server can be compiled
separately.
Currently we only have --enable-dbus-service, which enables
*building*
syncevo-dbus-server. Should we enable support for *using* it with that
same option? I think I prefer to keep it simple and use just one option.
You mean use '--enable-dbus-service [yes/no]' in the command line option?
Yes,
I think it's a good suggestion. It means 'enabling dbus service usage in the
command
line'.
Cheers,
Yongsheng
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ohly, Patrick
> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 5:15 PM
> To: Zhu, Yongsheng
> Cc: David Bremner; syncevolution(a)syncevolution.org
> Subject: RE: [SyncEvolution] syncevo-dbus-server and command line client
>
> On Mon, 2010-03-22 at 07:29 +0000, Zhu, Yongsheng wrote:
> > > Your comment about syncevo-dbus-server being compiled, but not installed
> > > implies that the default should better do a runtime check, something
> > > like:
> > > --use-daemon[=yes/no] run operations in cooperation with the
> > > background sync daemon; enabled by default
> if
> > > it is installed
> > So this option is used in the runtime command line arguments.
> > I summarize up below behaviors:
> > If the option is explicitly set by user with value 'yes', then if the
> > daemon is compiled, try to use it. Otherwise, report an error.
>
Nit-picking: if no support for D-Bus is compiled *into the command
line*, report one error ("support for --use-daemon not available in this
binary"?). That may or may not be the same as having compiled the
daemon. If the daemon fails to start, report that error.
>
Currently we only have --enable-dbus-service, which enables
*building*
syncevo-dbus-server. Should we enable support for *using* it with that
same option? I think I prefer to keep it simple and use just one option.
>
> --
> Best Regards, Patrick Ohly
>
> The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
> I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
> represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
> on behalf of Intel on this matter.
>