New wpa_supplicand dbus API proposal

[Marcel Holtmann]

Hi Witold,

> >> Here is second proposal of new DBus API build basing of our earlier
> >> e-mail correspondence, Marcel's remarks and arrangement I made with Dan
> >> on #wireless.
> >> I will start to implement this in next week. Request for comments.
> >>
> >> Service Name: fi.w1.wpa_supplicant1
> >>
> >> O: /fi/w1/wpa_supplicant1
> >> I : fi.w1.wpa_supplicant1
> >>
> >> M: CreateInterface(args a{sv}) -> path o
> >>    args: Ifname -> s
> >>          Driver -> s
> >>          Bridge-ifname -> s
> >>          Level -> u
> >>          Timestamp -> b
> >>          Show_keys -> b
> >>     
> Level should be DebugLevel - my mistake.
> >
> > can we add an Ifindex -> u here. So you can optionally give the
> > interface index or the name. Could be useful in some cases where
> > everything is based around the ifindex anyway.
> >   
> OK. We would return InterfaceExists error if specified index is in use.
> Do we actually need that indexing? Couldn't we just use paths like
> s/Interfaces/<ifname>/... instead of s/Interfaces/<ifindex>/...? That
> would make paths more telling, and we could kill interface indexing.

I think it is a bad idea to make the object path in D-Bus meaningful. I
would advise against it.

> >> E: fi.w1.wpa_supplicant1.InterfaceExists
> >>    fi.w1.wpa_supplicant1.InterfaceUnknown
> >>    fi.w1.wpa_supplicant1.UnknownError
> >>
> >> M: RemoveInterface(path o)
> >> E: fi.w1.wpa_supplicant1.InterfaceUnknown
> >>    fi.w1.wpa_supplicant1.UnknownError
> >>
> >> M: GetInterface(ifname s) -> path o
> >> E: fi.w1.wpa_supplicant1.InterfaceUnknown
> >>    fi.w1.wpa_supplicant1.UnknownError
> >>
> >> P: Interfaces -> ao
> >>    EapMethods -> as
> >>
> >> S: InterfaceAdded -> path o
> >> S: InterfaceRemoved -> path o
> >> S: PropertiesChanged -> properties a{sv}
> >>     
> >
> > I still think using Device instead of Interface is better for the sake
> > of mind :)
> >   
> Heh, actually I agree with Dan's explanation. I would rather consider
> Device as hardware device, and Interface as logical network Interface.
> Since there may be more than one interface on one device, and we are
> actually interested in interfaces, *not* in devices here, I think that
> Interface describes matter better than Device.

I agree with that, no questions asked. However using "Interface" as
D-Bus interface name is nasty and makes you drive crazy.

Regards

Marcel