Hi Jukka,

On 02/13/2015 08:23 AM, Jukka Rissanen wrote:
> On pe, 2015-02-13 at 08:01 -0600, Denis Kenzior wrote:
>> Hi Jukka,
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>   >>> +struct filter_data {
>>>>> +	struct l_dbus *dbus;
>>>>> +	l_dbus_message_func_t handle_func;
>>>>> +	l_dbus_watch_func_t connect_func;
>>>>> +	l_dbus_watch_func_t disconnect_func;
>>>>> +	char *name;
>>>>> +	char *owner;
>>>>
>>>> What is the exact difference between name and owner?  I don't see a
>>>> distinction...
>>>
>>> name is something like "org.foobar" and owner is ":1.101"
>>>
>>> User registers watch using a name and dbus-daemon sends its
>>> notifications about NameOwnerChanged signals using the owner format so
>>> we need to track both formats.
>>
>> Yes, but you don't actually handle that anywhere.  So I don't see a
>> distinction in the current code.  If this is TBD, then simply don't
>> include this and mention somewhere that only unique bus names are supported.
>
> Hmm, owner and name are handled differently in the code. For example see
> the format_rule() function.
>

Then help me understand.  You have:

in format_rule you have:
+       offset = snprintf(rule, size, "type='signal'");
+       sender = data->name ? : data->owner;
+
+       if (sender)
+               offset += snprintf(rule + offset, size - offset,
+                               ",sender='%s'", sender);

in filter_data_get you have:
+       if (sender) {
+               if (sender[0] == ':')
+                       owner = sender;
+               else
+                       name = sender;
+       }

So why not replace everything by simply sender?  Right now none of this 
makes sense to me since you're not traking the well-known-name -> unique 
name mapping.

If you only support unique names, just say so and make the code reflect 
that.  Don't try to sneak code in that is part of some future 
functionality.  I'm not a mind reader.

Regards,
-Denis