[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gtk-devel
Subject:    Re: GIO API review
From:       Mikael Hallendal <micke () imendio ! com>
Date:       2007-12-14 8:47:47
Message-ID: E0C8E28B-152C-4A2A-AA28-ED1AAF1108CD () imendio ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

14 dec 2007 kl. 09.27 skrev Alexander Larsson:

Hi,

> On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 19:19 +0100, Mikael Hallendal wrote:
>
>> For example, if we plan to never use the GAsync infrastructure for
>> anything other than GIO there is a point to put it under the GIO
>> namespace as it shows where it belongs and what part of GLib it is
>> used for. It also means we can have GFooAsync later without the two
>> getting confused with each other. The same for GCancellable and
>> similar namespaces.
>
> Eh, why would we not use these for anything other than GIO. They were
> specifically designed to be generic and to be used by other APIs.

Please re-read the start of the paragraph you quoted. If this is the  
case, all the better.

> Anything that has cancellable operations (things like libsoup or
> whateveR) should use GCancellable.

Perfect!

>> Without any namespace other than g_ it gives the idea that these
>> "frameworks" are used for more than one subsystem (at least to me).
>
> Which is why they are good names, as this is the intention.

Then we agree.

>> GAsync, GCancellable, g_push, g_pop, g_loadable, g_simple are  
>> examples
>> of namespaces that would benefit from being under the GIO name spaced
>> as they are too generic by themselves.
>
> A few of these are unnecessary taking up namespace, and I'm working on
> fixing these.

And here too. :)

Cheers,
   Mikael Hallendal

-- 
Imendio AB, http://www.imendio.com



_______________________________________________
gtk-devel-list mailing list
gtk-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]