gnustep-dev
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: OpenBSD: Services problems


From: Richard Frith-Macdonald
Subject: Re: OpenBSD: Services problems
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 16:59:28 +0100

On 12 Sep 2011, at 16:44, Fred Kiefer wrote:

> On 12.09.2011 15:44, Riccardo Mottola wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I can reproduce the said problem with MinGW too, perhaps you can try at
>> your place too?
>> I avoid testing GWorkspace under windows, so I used TextEdit -> Vespucci
>> and opened an URL
>>> The basic problem reported here is that a method signature doesn't
>>> have type information attached to it. This gets detected in line 2601
>>> of the file NSConnection.m. There we also have some addition error
>>> reporting in place. Could you please run your service applications
>>> with --GNU-Debug=dflt. It would also be interesting to get even more
>>> information from this method. What object are we trying to access (I
>>> think it should be the GSServiceManager) and is the service method
>>> found on the object?
>> Bu running the application with your option (inside GDB so i get an
>> output on windows) I get:
>> 
>> warning: 2011-09-12 15:41:56.385 Vespucci[5344] currentMode =
>> NSDefaultRunLoopMode
>> 
>> warning: 2011-09-12 15:42:08.229 Vespucci[5344] Local object <0x1b9feb0
>> GSListener> doesn't implement: openURL:userData:error: directly. Will
>> search for arbitrary signature.
>> 
>> warning: 2011-09-12 15:42:08.229 Vespucci[5344] NSConnection.m:2601
>> Assertion failed in -[NSConnection(Private) _service:forwardForProxy:].
>> Invalid parameter not satisfying: type
> 
> That's just the result I expected. Object is a GSListener, a subclass of 
> NSProxy, and our current code isn't able to extract the method signature from 
> that kind. I still think the solution I suggested in the last mail, using 
> -methodSignatureForSelector: is the correct one, but I would like to get 
> comments, at least, from Richard and David on that.

Yes, I've been looking at it, and I think your solution is the best/correct one 
...  I'll commit the version I've been trying.




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]