DBus/QtDBus Concerns

[Gary Cramblitt]

On Thursday 13 July 2006 13:20, Philip Rodrigues wrote:
> David Faure wrote:
> > On Wednesday 12 July 2006 04:33, Gary Cramblitt wrote:
> >> 2.  IDL Documentation.
> >
> > I heard that this topic was discussed on the dbus mailing-list, I guess
> > one of us needs to go there and push this more :)
>
> I'd like to get a judge of the demand from KDE developers for such a
> feature. I think the lack of documentation for functions was a big problem
> for DCOP, and so I'd like to see it available for DBUS. I asked on the DBUS
> list, and the situation seems to be that everyone agrees it's a good idea,
> but no-one is quite sure of the best way to implement it.
>
> Anyway, if there's enough demand for this feature from the KDE side, I'll
> look into how best to push this forward.

As I noted in my post, there are two aspects to this requirement: 1) 
Documentation available at runtime, and 2) documentation available for 
programmers to look at offline.  The issue with the former is performance 
(you don't want to have to move gobs of documentation just to do marshaling), 
and the issue with the latter is: what should the format be that would 
support the *many* documentation systems that are used.

It would be great if you could work the problem and keep the issue in people's 
minds.
-- 
Gary Cramblitt (aka PhantomsDad)