Re: [PATCH 0/2] iw: add GeoClue support

["Luis R. Rodriguez" <lrodriguez@atheros.com>]

On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 02:05:56PM -0700, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 10:46 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 09:05:07AM -0700, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 08:44 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > What use is a command line tool that has to talk to a whole bunch of
> > > > > daemons etc.?
> > > > 
> > > > The current implementation doesn't talk to deamons. The hostip
> > > > provider within GeoClue and it will just trigger a URL get. If
> > > > desktops start implementing a master server though then the query
> > > > would simply be a cached response. 
> > > 
> > > Note that this error carries on in the mail. There is a master provider
> > > for Geoclue that can make use of whatever providers are available, but
> > > it's not in too good a shape.
> > 
> > I see, can you elaborate on that a little?
> 
> See the bugzillas filed against Geoclue, most of them are due to bugs in
> the Geoclue master provider.
> 
> > > I'd rather somebody started fixing the Geoclue master provider rather
> > > than relying on a particular service, especially when the D-Bus API for
> > > the providers themselves is something we don't want to support in the
> > > longer term.
> > 
> > Would the master provider not use Dbus for gypsy, for example?
> 
> No, I'm talking about what's exported by the providers. I don't really
> care if they talk to other parts of the system using D-Bus though. I'm
> talking about link 2) here.
> 
> [App] <-1-> [Geoclue master] <-2-> [Gypsy provider] <-3-> [Gypsy daemon]

Sorry I do not follow yet. Is the idea that you would prefer if
client applications would never talk to providers directly and instead
always used the master provider?

 Luis