Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

docs/develop: Replace g_dbus_proxy_call with g_dbus_connection_call #106

Closed

Conversation

johan-bjareholt
Copy link
Member

Describe your changes

The example in "VAPIX access for ACAP applications" creates a connection to the bus, creates a proxy object and then calls the method. Creating a proxy for this use-case is unnecessary and does one or more D-Bus calls under the hood as you do not pass G_DBUS_PROXY_FLAGS_DO_NOT_LOAD_PROPERTIES which is necessary to make this request "lightweight". The better solution is to skip the proxy completely and just use g_dbus_connection_call_sync, as we do not use any of the features of the proxy.

Issue ticket number and link

N/A

Checklist before requesting a review

  • I have performed a self-review of my own code
  • I have verified that the code builds perfectly fine on my local system
  • I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
  • I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
  • I have verified that my code follows the style already available in the repository
  • I have made corresponding changes to the documentation

The example in "VAPIX access for ACAP applications" creates a
connection to the bus, creates a proxy object and then calls the method.
Creating a proxy for this use-case is unnecessary and does one or more
D-Bus calls under the hood as you do not pass
G_DBUS_PROXY_FLAGS_DO_NOT_LOAD_PROPERTIES which is necessary to make
this request "lightweight". The better solution is to skip the proxy
completely and just use g_dbus_connection_call_sync, as we do not use
any of the features of the proxy.

Change-Id: I1ba8781ab68492a426e150691b0015fc55be53d0
@johan-bjareholt johan-bjareholt requested a review from a team as a code owner October 10, 2023 11:09
@pataxis pataxis mentioned this pull request Oct 12, 2023
@pataxis pataxis closed this in #107 Oct 12, 2023
@pataxis
Copy link
Contributor

pataxis commented Oct 12, 2023

Hi @johan-bjareholt , thank you for your contribution, much appreciated, it was integrated in #107 !

FYI, this PR was closed due to the one-directional sync procedure we currently have between a staging repo and this public repo.
We want to change the flow to something that works better for public contributions like this in a not to far future.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants