|
|
|
DCOP: Desktop COmmunications Protocol
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Preston Brown <pbrown@kde.org>
|
|
|
|
October 14, 1999
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revised and extended by Matthias Ettrich <ettrich@kde.org>
|
|
|
|
Mar 29, 2000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Extended with DCOP Signals by Waldo Bastian <bastian@kde.org>
|
|
|
|
Feb 19, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Motivation and Background:
|
|
|
|
--------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The motivation behind building a protocol like DCOP is simple. For
|
|
|
|
the past year, we have been attempting to enable interprocess
|
|
|
|
communication between KDE applications. KDE already has an extremely
|
|
|
|
simple IPC mechanism called KWMcom, which is (was!) used for communicating
|
|
|
|
between the panel and the window manager for instance. It is about as
|
|
|
|
simple as it gets, passing messages via X Atoms. For this reason it
|
|
|
|
is limited in the size and complexity of the data that can be passed
|
|
|
|
(X atoms must be small to remain efficient) and it also makes it so
|
|
|
|
that X is required. CORBA was thought to be a more effective IPC/RPC
|
|
|
|
solution. However, after a year of attempting to make heavy use of
|
|
|
|
CORBA in KDE, we have realized that it is a bit slow and memory
|
|
|
|
intensive for simple use. It also has no authentication available.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What we really needed was an extremely simple protocol with basic
|
|
|
|
authorization, along the lines of MIT-MAGIC-COOKIE, as used by X. It
|
|
|
|
would not be able to do NEARLY what CORBA was able to do, but for the
|
|
|
|
simple tasks required it would be sufficient. Some examples of such
|
|
|
|
tasks might be an application sending a message to the panel saying,
|
|
|
|
"I have started, stop displaying the 'application starting' wait
|
|
|
|
state," or having a new application that starts query to see if any
|
|
|
|
other applications of the same name are running. If they are, simply
|
|
|
|
call a function on the remote application to create a new window,
|
|
|
|
rather than starting a new process.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Implementation:
|
|
|
|
---------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DCOP is a simple IPC/RPC mechanism built to operate over sockets.
|
|
|
|
Either unix domain sockets or tcp/ip sockets are supported. DCOP is
|
|
|
|
built on top of the Inter Client Exchange (ICE) protocol, which comes
|
|
|
|
standard as a part of X11R6 and later. It also depends on Qt, but
|
|
|
|
beyond that it does not require any other libraries. Because of this,
|
|
|
|
it is extremely lightweight, enabling it to be linked into all KDE
|
|
|
|
applications with low overhead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Model:
|
|
|
|
------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The model is simple. Each application using DCOP is a client. They
|
|
|
|
communicate to each other through a DCOP server, which functions like
|
|
|
|
a traffic director, dispatching messages/calls to the proper
|
|
|
|
destinations. All clients are peers of each other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Two types of actions are possible with DCOP: "send and forget"
|
|
|
|
messages, which do not block, and "calls," which block waiting for
|
|
|
|
some data to be returned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Any data that will be sent is serialized (marshalled, for you CORBA
|
|
|
|
types) using the built-in QDataStream operators available in all of
|
|
|
|
the Qt classes. This is fast and easy. In fact it's so little work
|
|
|
|
that you can easily write the marshalling code by hand. In addition,
|
|
|
|
there's a simple IDL-like compiler available (dcopidl and dcopidl2cpp)
|
|
|
|
that generates stubs and skeletons for you. Using the dcopidl compiler
|
|
|
|
has the additional benefit of type safety.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This HOWTO describes the manual method first and covers the dcopidl
|
|
|
|
compiler later.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Establishing the Connection:
|
|
|
|
----------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
KApplication has gained a method called "KApplication::dcopClient()"
|
|
|
|
which returns a pointer to a DCOPClient instance. The first time this
|
|
|
|
method is called, the client class will be created. DCOPClients have
|
|
|
|
unique identifiers attached to them which are based on what
|
|
|
|
KApplication::name() returns. In fact, if there is only a single
|
|
|
|
instance of the program running, the appId will be equal to
|
|
|
|
KApplication::name().
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To actually enable DCOP communication to begin, you must use
|
|
|
|
DCOPClient::attach(). This will attempt to attach to the DCOP server.
|
|
|
|
If no server is found or there is any other type of error, attach()
|
|
|
|
will return false. KApplication will catch a dcop signal and display an
|
|
|
|
appropriate error message box in that case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After connecting with the server via DCOPClient::attach(), you need to
|
|
|
|
register this appId with the server so it knows about you. Otherwise,
|
|
|
|
you are communicating anonymously. Use the
|
|
|
|
DCOPClient::registerAs(const QCString &name) to do so. In the simple
|
|
|
|
case:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* returns the appId that is actually registered, which _may_ be
|
|
|
|
* different from what you passed
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
appId = client->registerAs(kApp->name());
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you never retrieve the DCOPClient pointer from KApplication, the
|
|
|
|
object will not be created and thus there will be no memory overhead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You may also detach from the server by calling DCOPClient::detach().
|
|
|
|
If you wish to attach again you will need to re-register as well. If
|
|
|
|
you only wish to change the ID under which you are registered, simply
|
|
|
|
call DCOPClient::registerAs() with the new name.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
KUniqueApplication automatically registers itself to DCOP. If you
|
|
|
|
are using KUniqueApplication you should not attach or register
|
|
|
|
yourself, this is already done. The appId is by definition
|
|
|
|
equal to kapp->name(). You can retrieve the registered DCOP client
|
|
|
|
by calling kapp->dcopClient().
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sending Data to a Remote Application:
|
|
|
|
-------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To actually communicate, you have one of two choices. You may either
|
|
|
|
call the "send" or the "call" method. Both methods require three
|
|
|
|
identification parameters: an application identifier, a remote object,
|
|
|
|
a remote function. Sending is asynchronous (i.e. it returns immediately)
|
|
|
|
and may or may not result in your own application being sent a message at
|
|
|
|
some point in the future. Then "send" requires one and "call" requires
|
|
|
|
two data parameters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The remote object must be specified as an object hierarchy. That is,
|
|
|
|
if the toplevel object is called "fooObject" and has the child
|
|
|
|
"barObject", you would reference this object as "fooObject/barObject".
|
|
|
|
Functions must be described by a full function signature. If the
|
|
|
|
remote function is called "doIt", and it takes an int, it would be
|
|
|
|
described as "doIt(int)". Please note that the return type is not
|
|
|
|
specified here, as it is not part of the function signature (or at
|
|
|
|
least the C++ understanding of a function signature). You will get
|
|
|
|
the return type of a function back as an extra parameter to
|
|
|
|
DCOPClient::call(). See the section on call() for more details.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In order to actually get the data to the remote client, it must be
|
|
|
|
"serialized" via a QDataStream operating on a QByteArray. This is how
|
|
|
|
the data parameter is "built". A few examples will make clear how this
|
|
|
|
works.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Say you want to call "doIt" as described above, and not block (or wait
|
|
|
|
for a response). You will not receive the return value of the remotely
|
|
|
|
called function, but you will not hang while the RPC is processed either.
|
|
|
|
The return value of send() indicates whether DCOP communication succeeded
|
|
|
|
or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
QByteArray data;
|
|
|
|
QDataStream arg(data, IO_WriteOnly);
|
|
|
|
arg << 5;
|
|
|
|
if (!client->send("someAppId", "fooObject/barObject", "doIt(int)",
|
|
|
|
data))
|
|
|
|
tqDebug("there was some error using DCOP.");
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK, now let's say we wanted to get the data back from the remotely
|
|
|
|
called function. You have to execute a call() instead of a send().
|
|
|
|
The returned value will then be available in the data parameter "reply".
|
|
|
|
The actual return value of call() is still whether or not DCOP
|
|
|
|
communication was successful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
QByteArray data, replyData;
|
|
|
|
QCString replyType;
|
|
|
|
QDataStream arg(data, IO_WriteOnly);
|
|
|
|
arg << 5;
|
|
|
|
if (!client->call("someAppId", "fooObject/barObject", "doIt(int)",
|
|
|
|
data, replyType, replyData))
|
|
|
|
tqDebug("there was some error using DCOP.");
|
|
|
|
else {
|
|
|
|
QDataStream reply(replyData, IO_ReadOnly);
|
|
|
|
if (replyType == "QString") {
|
|
|
|
QString result;
|
|
|
|
reply >> result;
|
|
|
|
print("the result is: %s",result.latin1());
|
|
|
|
} else
|
|
|
|
tqDebug("doIt returned an unexpected type of reply!");
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N.B.: You cannot call() a method belonging to an application which has
|
|
|
|
registered with an unique numeric id appended to its textual name (see
|
|
|
|
dcopclient.h for more info). In this case, DCOP would not know which
|
|
|
|
application it should connect with to call the method. This is not an issue
|
|
|
|
with send(), as you can broadcast to all applications that have registered
|
|
|
|
with appname-<numeric_id> by using a wildcard (e.g. 'konsole-*'), which
|
|
|
|
will send your signal to all applications called 'konsole'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Receiving Data via DCOP:
|
|
|
|
------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currently the only real way to receive data from DCOP is to multiply
|
|
|
|
inherit from the normal class that you are inheriting (usually some
|
|
|
|
sort of QWidget subclass or QObject) as well as the DCOPObject class.
|
|
|
|
DCOPObject provides one very important method: DCOPObject::process().
|
|
|
|
This is a pure virtual method that you must implement in order to
|
|
|
|
process DCOP messages that you receive. It takes a function
|
|
|
|
signature, QByteArray of parameters, and a reference to a QByteArray
|
|
|
|
for the reply data that you must fill in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Think of DCOPObject::process() as a sort of dispatch agent. In the
|
|
|
|
future, there will probably be a precompiler for your sources to write
|
|
|
|
this method for you. However, until that point you need to examine
|
|
|
|
the incoming function signature and take action accordingly. Here is
|
|
|
|
an example implementation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bool BarObject::process(const QCString &fun, const QByteArray &data,
|
|
|
|
QCString &replyType, QByteArray &replyData)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
if (fun == "doIt(int)") {
|
|
|
|
QDataStream arg(data, IO_ReadOnly);
|
|
|
|
int i; // parameter
|
|
|
|
arg >> i;
|
|
|
|
QString result = self->doIt (i);
|
|
|
|
QDataStream reply(replyData, IO_WriteOnly);
|
|
|
|
reply << result;
|
|
|
|
replyType = "QString";
|
|
|
|
return true;
|
|
|
|
} else {
|
|
|
|
tqDebug("unknown function call to BarObject::process()");
|
|
|
|
return false;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Receiving Calls and processing them:
|
|
|
|
------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If your applications is able to process incoming function calls
|
|
|
|
right away the above code is all you need. When your application
|
|
|
|
needs to do more complex tasks you might want to do the processing
|
|
|
|
out of 'process' function call and send the result back later when
|
|
|
|
it becomes available.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For this you can ask your DCOPClient for a transactionId. You can
|
|
|
|
then return from the 'process' function and when the result is
|
|
|
|
available finish the transaction. In the mean time your application
|
|
|
|
can receive incoming DCOP function calls from other clients.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Such code could like this:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bool BarObject::process(const QCString &fun, const QByteArray &data,
|
|
|
|
QCString &, QByteArray &)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
if (fun == "doIt(int)") {
|
|
|
|
QDataStream arg(data, IO_ReadOnly);
|
|
|
|
int i; // parameter
|
|
|
|
arg >> i;
|
|
|
|
QString result = self->doIt(i);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DCOPClientTransaction *myTransaction;
|
|
|
|
myTransaction = kapp->dcopClient()->beginTransaction();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// start processing...
|
|
|
|
// Calls slotProcessingDone when finished.
|
|
|
|
startProcessing( myTransaction, i);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return true;
|
|
|
|
} else {
|
|
|
|
tqDebug("unknown function call to BarObject::process()");
|
|
|
|
return false;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
slotProcessingDone(DCOPClientTransaction *myTransaction, const QString &result)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
QCString replyType = "QString";
|
|
|
|
QByteArray replyData;
|
|
|
|
QDataStream reply(replyData, IO_WriteOnly);
|
|
|
|
reply << result;
|
|
|
|
kapp->dcopClient()->endTransaction( myTransaction, replyType, replyData );
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DCOP Signals
|
|
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sometimes a component wants to send notifications via DCOP to other
|
|
|
|
components but does not know which components will be interested in these
|
|
|
|
notifications. One could use a broadcast in such a case but this is a very
|
|
|
|
crude method. For a more sophisticated method DCOP signals have been invented.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DCOP signals are very similair to Qt signals, there are some differences
|
|
|
|
though. A DCOP signal can be connected to a DCOP function. Whenever the DCOP
|
|
|
|
signal gets emitted, the DCOP functions to which the signal is connected are
|
|
|
|
being called. DCOP signals are, just like Qt signals, one way. They do not
|
|
|
|
provide a return value.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A DCOP signal originates from a DCOP Object/DCOP Client combination (sender).
|
|
|
|
It can be connected to a function of another DCOP Object/DCOP Client
|
|
|
|
combination (receiver).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are two major differences between connections of Qt signals and
|
|
|
|
connections of DCOP signals. In DCOP, unlike Qt, a signal connections can
|
|
|
|
have an anonymous sender and, unlike Qt, a DCOP signal connection can be
|
|
|
|
non-volatile.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
With DCOP one can connect a signal without specifying the sending DCOP Object
|
|
|
|
or DCOP Client. In that case signals from any DCOP Object and/or DCOP Client
|
|
|
|
will be delivered. This allows the specification of certain events without
|
|
|
|
tying oneself to a certain object that implementes the events.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another DCOP feature are so called non-volatile connections. With Qt signal
|
|
|
|
connections, the connection gets deleted when either sender or receiver of
|
|
|
|
the signal gets deleted. A volatile DCOP signal connection will behave the
|
|
|
|
same. However, a non-volatile DCOP signal connection will not get deleted
|
|
|
|
when the sending object gets deleted. Once a new object gets created with
|
|
|
|
the same name as the original sending object, the connection will be restored.
|
|
|
|
There is no difference between the two when the receiving object gets deleted,
|
|
|
|
in that case the signal connection will always be deleted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A receiver can create a non-volatile connection while the sender doesn't (yet)
|
|
|
|
exist. An anonymous DCOP connection should always be non-volatile.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following example shows how KLauncher emits a signal whenever it notices
|
|
|
|
that an application that was started via KLauncher terminates.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
QByteArray params;
|
|
|
|
QDataStream stream(params, IO_WriteOnly);
|
|
|
|
stream << pid;
|
|
|
|
kapp->dcopClient()->emitDCOPSignal("clientDied(pid_t)", params);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The task manager of the KDE panel connects to this signal. It uses an
|
|
|
|
anonymous connection (it doesn't require that the signal is being emitted
|
|
|
|
by KLauncher) that is non-volatile:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
connectDCOPSignal(0, 0, "clientDied(pid_t)", "clientDied(pid_t)", false);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It connects the clientDied(pid_t) signal to its own clientDied(pid_t) DCOP
|
|
|
|
function. In this case the signal and the function to call have the same name.
|
|
|
|
This isn't needed as long as the arguments of both signal and receiving function
|
|
|
|
match. The receiving function may ignore one or more of the trailing arguments
|
|
|
|
of the signal. E.g. it is allowed to connect the clientDied(pid_t) signal to
|
|
|
|
a clientDied(void) DCOP function.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Using the dcopidl compiler
|
|
|
|
---------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dcopidl makes setting up a DCOP server easy. Instead of having to implement
|
|
|
|
the process() method and unmarshalling (retrieving from QByteArray) parameters
|
|
|
|
manually, you can let dcopidl create the necessary code on your behalf.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This also allows you to describe the interface for your class in a
|
|
|
|
single, separate header file.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Writing an IDL file is very similar to writing a normal C++ header. An
|
|
|
|
exception is the keyword 'ASYNC'. It indicates that a call to this
|
|
|
|
function shall be processed asynchronously. For the C++ compiler, it
|
|
|
|
expands to 'void'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Example:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#ifndef MY_INTERFACE_H
|
|
|
|
#define MY_INTERFACE_H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#include <dcopobject.h>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
class MyInterface : virtual public DCOPObject
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
K_DCOP
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
k_dcop:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
virtual ASYNC myAsynchronousMethod(QString someParameter) = 0;
|
|
|
|
virtual QRect mySynchronousMethod() = 0;
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#endif
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As you can see, you're essentially declaring an abstract base class, which
|
|
|
|
virtually inherits from DCOPObject.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you're using the standard KDE build scripts, then you can simply
|
|
|
|
add this file (which you would call MyInterface.h) to your sources
|
|
|
|
directory. Then you edit your Makefile.am, adding 'MyInterface.skel'
|
|
|
|
to your SOURCES list and MyInterface.h to include_HEADERS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The build scripts will use dcopidl to parse MyInterface.h, converting
|
|
|
|
it to an XML description in MyInterface.kidl. Next, a file called
|
|
|
|
MyInterface_skel.cpp will automatically be created, compiled and
|
|
|
|
linked with your binary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The next thing you have to do is to choose which of your classes will
|
|
|
|
implement the interface described in MyInterface.h. Alter the inheritance
|
|
|
|
of this class such that it virtually inherits from MyInterface. Then
|
|
|
|
add declarations to your class interface similar to those on MyInterface.h,
|
|
|
|
but virtual, not pure virtual.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Example:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
class MyClass: public QObject, virtual public MyInterface
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
Q_OBJECT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
public:
|
|
|
|
MyClass();
|
|
|
|
~MyClass();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ASYNC myAsynchronousMethod(QString someParameter);
|
|
|
|
QRect mySynchronousMethod();
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note: (Qt issue) Remember that if you are inheriting from QObject, you must
|
|
|
|
place it first in the list of inherited classes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the implementation of your class' ctor, you must explicitly initialize
|
|
|
|
those classes from which you are inheriting from. This is, of course, good
|
|
|
|
practice, but it is essential here as you need to tell DCOPObject the name of
|
|
|
|
the interface which your are implementing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Example:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MyClass::MyClass()
|
|
|
|
: QObject(),
|
|
|
|
DCOPObject("MyInterface")
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
// whatever...
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now you can simply implement the methods you have declared in your interface,
|
|
|
|
exactly the same as you would normally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Example:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
void MyClass::myAsynchronousMethod(QString someParameter)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
tqDebug("myAsyncMethod called with param `" + someParameter + "'");
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is not necessary (though very clean) to define an interface as an
|
|
|
|
abstract class of its own, like we did in the example above. We could
|
|
|
|
just as well have defined a k_dcop section directly within MyClass:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
class MyClass: public QObject, virtual public DCOPObject
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
Q_OBJECT
|
|
|
|
K_DCOP
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
public:
|
|
|
|
MyClass();
|
|
|
|
~MyClass();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
k_dcop:
|
|
|
|
ASYNC myAsynchronousMethod(QString someParameter);
|
|
|
|
QRect mySynchronousMethod();
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In addition to skeletons, dcopidl2cpp also generate stubs. Those make
|
|
|
|
it easy to call a DCOP interface without doing the marshalling
|
|
|
|
manually. To use a stub, add MyInterface.stub to the SOURCES list of
|
|
|
|
your Makefile.am. The stub class will then be called MyInterface_stub.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conclusion:
|
|
|
|
-----------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hopefully this document will get you well on your way into the world
|
|
|
|
of inter-process communication with KDE! Please direct all comments
|
|
|
|
and/or suggestions to Preston Brown <pbrown@kde.org> and Matthias
|
|
|
|
Ettrich <ettrich@kde.org>.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inter-user communication
|
|
|
|
------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sometimes it might be interesting to use DCOP between processes
|
|
|
|
belonging to different users, e.g. a frontend process running
|
|
|
|
with the user's id, and a backend process running as root.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For this you can use tdesu with the --nonewdcop option. tdesu will
|
|
|
|
then forward the address of the DCOP server as well as the authentication
|
|
|
|
information to the new user.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*WARNING*: This gives the user that you su to, full access to your session!
|
|
|
|
If you su to root this will not be a problem, but it may be a problem if
|
|
|
|
you su to another user.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By default, KDE applications (e.g. the ones that run as root) that connect
|
|
|
|
to the dcopserver of another user will not accept any incoming DCOP calls.
|
|
|
|
You can override this with DCOPClient::setAcceptCalls() after you have
|
|
|
|
carefully reviewed that your DCOPClient does not provide objects/functions
|
|
|
|
that could be abused for privilege escalation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Example: tdesu --nonewdcop -u root -c kcmroot
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This will, after tdesu got the root password, execute kcmroot as root,
|
|
|
|
talking to the user's dcop server.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Performance Tests:
|
|
|
|
------------------
|
|
|
|
A few back-of-the-napkin tests folks:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Code:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#include <kapplication.h>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
int main(int argc, char **argv)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
KApplication *app;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
app = new KApplication(argc, argv, "testit");
|
|
|
|
return app->exec();
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Compiled with:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
g++ -O2 -o testit testit.cpp -I$QTDIR/include -L$QTDIR/lib -ltdecore
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
on Linux yields the following memory use statistics:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VmSize: 8076 kB
|
|
|
|
VmLck: 0 kB
|
|
|
|
VmRSS: 4532 kB
|
|
|
|
VmData: 208 kB
|
|
|
|
VmStk: 20 kB
|
|
|
|
VmExe: 4 kB
|
|
|
|
VmLib: 6588 kB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If I create the KApplication's DCOPClient, and call attach() and
|
|
|
|
registerAs(), it changes to this:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VmSize: 8080 kB
|
|
|
|
VmLck: 0 kB
|
|
|
|
VmRSS: 4624 kB
|
|
|
|
VmData: 208 kB
|
|
|
|
VmStk: 20 kB
|
|
|
|
VmExe: 4 kB
|
|
|
|
VmLib: 6588 kB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basically it appears that using DCOP causes 100k more memory to be
|
|
|
|
resident, but no more data or stack. So this will be shared between all
|
|
|
|
processes, right? 100k to enable DCOP in all apps doesn't seem bad at
|
|
|
|
all. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK now for some timings. Just creating a KApplication and then exiting
|
|
|
|
(i.e. removing the call to KApplication::exec) takes this much time:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.28user 0.02system 0:00.32elapsed 92%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
|
|
|
|
0inputs+0outputs (1084major+62minor)pagefaults 0swaps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I.e. about 1/3 of a second on my PII-233. Now, if we create our DCOP
|
|
|
|
object and attach to the server, it takes this long:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.27user 0.03system 0:00.34elapsed 87%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
|
|
|
|
0inputs+0outputs (1107major+65minor)pagefaults 0swaps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I.e. about 1/3 of a second. Basically DCOPClient creation and attaching
|
|
|
|
gets lost in the statistical variation ("noise"). I was getting times
|
|
|
|
between .32 and .48 over several runs for both of the example programs, so
|
|
|
|
obviously system load is more relevant than the extra two calls to
|
|
|
|
DCOPClient::attach and DCOPClient::registerAs, as well as the actual
|
|
|
|
DCOPClient constructor time.
|
|
|
|
|