Before. I'm partway through switching to gdbus too, which fixes the extra handle for
progress indication and will affect how we marshal errors.
(Apologies for HTML and top-posting; Android mailer is broken.)
Patrick Ohly <patrick.ohly(a)intel.com> wrote:
On Mon, 2011-10-10 at 15:03 +0000, Woodhouse, David wrote:
Yeah, that's how the camel code does it. I think there are ways
sanely marshal errors over dbus?
Might be, but I don't know how that would work. Filed as
This is an API change/extension. Should it be done before releasing the
ActiveSync libs as 1.0 or later?
To me, 1.0 kind of implies that we have the API ironed out for apps to
use it. In this case we are asking apps to use hacks to achieve the
desired result because the API is not quite complete yet. I'd rather
call it 0.9, then do the API clean-up and finally bump to 1.0. Just my 2
cents, of course.
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly
The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.
SyncEvolution mailing list