Replies: 1 comment
-
Hi, if I understood you correctly, then you want to expose This project here creates a REST API interface around signal-cli's internal API, so signal-cli's internal API(s) aren't directly exposed to the user. While this obviously has some disadvantages (e.g we do not have every functionality of signal-cli exposed yet via APIs), this also has one big advantage: API stability and versioned APIs. So that's mainly the reason why this API wrapper exists :) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
-
I have an application that uses the Dbus Mode of signal-cli. While I know you don't like Dbus much, I see that you have a pretty sophisticated Docker creation that with RPC now also supports a kind of "daemon" mode.
While I really struggle providing my users a dockerized version (also due to my limited Docker know how), I would think that adding a Dbus MODE to your project should not be so complicated.
With 0.9.0 signal-cli daemon can be started without -u parameter and all the registration is done via Dbus as well, so a container that just runs a signal-cli with "daemon --system" is what I'm looking for.
To make Dbus work however, I believe that
/var/run/dbus/system_bus_socket
would need to be exposed somehow (here my Docker know how definately is insufficent)
What do you think - could we add that (willing to help here) and prevent inventing the wheel again?
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions