Using Gio.DBusProxy.makeProxyWrapper in the global scope of the extension

[popov895 (Eugene Popov)]

Hi there.

Do you think it is wrong to use Gio.DBusProxy.makeProxyWrapper in the global scope of the extension? In other words, is the code below incorrect?

const { Gio } = imports.gi;

const BrightnessInterface = loadInterfaceXML(`org.gnome.SettingsDaemon.Power.Screen`);
const BrightnessProxy = Gio.DBusProxy.makeProxyWrapper(BrightnessInterface);

As stated in the documentation, Gio.DBusProxy.makeProxyWrapper creates a reusable class that can be used to create a proxy, but it doesn’t create any objects. Therefore, in my opinion, the code above is correct. Or am I wrong somewhere?

[andyholmes]

Well, even Functions are objects in JavaScript. Is this in reference to a review you received for your extension?

[popov895 (Eugene Popov)]

Yes. My extension was rejected during review.

[andyholmes]

I guess it might be a gray area, but there’s really no downside to making the call in enable() and dropping it in disable().

[popov895 (Eugene Popov)]

Hmm, okay. So how do I do it correctly?

enable() {
    const ProxyWrapper = Gio.DBusProxy.makeProxyWrapper(BrightnessInterface);
    this._proxy = new Proxy(...);
}

disable() {
    delete this._proxy;
}

or

enable() {
    this._proxyWrapper = Gio.DBusProxy.makeProxyWrapper(BrightnessInterface);
    this._proxy = new this._proxyWrapper(...);
}

disable() {
    delete this._proxy;
    delete this._proxyWrapper;
}

[andyholmes]

The first is pretty much how I would do it. I usually assign null instead of using delete, but I don’t think that matters.