Attachment 85910 Details for Bug 68597 – Do not require messages without INTERFACE to be dispatched

[patch] Do not require messages without INTERFACE to be dispatched

0002-Do-not-require-messages-without-INTERFACE-to-be-disp.patch (text/plain), 2.51 KB, created by Simon McVittie on 2013-09-16 13:21:40 UTC

(hide)

Description:

Filename:

MIME Type:

Creator: Simon McVittie

Created: 2013-09-16 13:21:40 UTC

Size: 2.51 KB

patch

obsolete

>From 749bf6140bf5c1d1a0b2ffe7a8e5b8afccb5d7dc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>From: Simon McVittie <simon.mcvittie@collabora.co.uk>
>Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 14:16:13 +0100
>Subject: [PATCH 2/3] Do not require messages without INTERFACE to be
> dispatched
>
>Previously, if we have interfaces:
>
>    interface com.example.foo:
>        method Ambiguous()
>    interface com.example.bar:
>        method Ambiguous()
>        method Unambiguous()
>
>implementations were required to deliver a message with no INTERFACE
>and METHOD=Unambiguous to "bar". A message with no INTERFACE and
>METHOD=Ambiguous could either be delivered to "foo", delivered to "bar"
>or treated as an error.
>
>Relax this to allow an error for the unambiguous case, too, and
>strongly recommend specifying the interface (which is best-practice).
>
>Bug: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=68597
>---
> doc/dbus-specification.xml | 16 ++++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/doc/dbus-specification.xml b/doc/dbus-specification.xml
>index ce58fe8..eb858bc 100644
>--- a/doc/dbus-specification.xml
>+++ b/doc/dbus-specification.xml
>@@ -1677,12 +1677,16 @@
>         <para>
>           A method call message is required to have a <literal>MEMBER</literal> header field
>           indicating the name of the method. Optionally, the message has an
>-          <literal>INTERFACE</literal> field giving the interface the method is a part of. In the
>-          absence of an <literal>INTERFACE</literal> field, if two interfaces on the same object have
>-          a method with the same name, it is undefined which of the two methods
>-          will be invoked. Implementations may also choose to return an error in
>-          this ambiguous case. However, if a method name is unique
>-          implementations must not require an interface field.
>+          <literal>INTERFACE</literal> field giving the interface the method is a part of.
>+          Including the <literal>INTERFACE</literal> in all method call
>+          messages is strongly recommended.
>+        </para>
>+        <para>
>+          In the absence of an <literal>INTERFACE</literal> field, if two
>+          or more interfaces on the same object have a method with the same
>+          name, it is undefined which of those methods will be invoked.
>+          Implementations may choose to either return an error, or deliver the
>+          message as though it had an arbitrary one of those interfaces.
>         </para>
>         <para>
>           Method call messages also include a <literal>PATH</literal> field
>-- 
>1.8.4.rc3
>

Actions: View | Splinter Review

Attachments on bug 68597: 85910 | 85911

Use of freedesktop.org services, including Bugzilla, is subject to our Code of Conduct. How we collect and use information is described in our Privacy Policy.