On Tue, 2016-01-26 at 08:07 -0800, Paul Stewart wrote: > > I'll add the obligatory comment that for other projects we did end up > writing a tool [1] for taking in an XML D-Bus interface definition > (as taken from an introspection) and generating abstract object > definitions for all of the D-Bus RPC objects in our > applications. This meant that implementing the functionality just > required writing a subclass of each of these generated objects. We > ended up adding a couple small annotations to the XML, e.g., > asynchronous vs. synchronous methods. Nice. > As Christopher says, Binder has it's own interface definition > language and semantics. > Writing a "master interface definition language" to generate those > two other definition languages sounds a little too academic. :-) Yeah, it probably is. It seems it ought to be possible, but I've never really played with either (binder or dbus) much... Perhaps kdbus will eventually take over everything ;-) johannes _______________________________________________ Hostap mailing list Hostap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/hostap
