On 10/21/2011 06:41 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
On 10/20/2011 04:20 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:14:57PM +0200, Peter Krempa wrote:
>> On 09/29/2011 06:22 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
>>> The improvements to virBuffer, along with a paradigm shift to pass
>>> the original buffer through rather than creating a second buffer,
>>> allow us to shave off quite a few lines of code.
>>>
>>>
>> I'd squash in the attached patch, but it's not necessary as it gets
>> rid of non automatic indentation whitespace, but makes the code look
>> cleaner :)
>
> I'm not entirely convinced this is a good idea. This means that
> when looking at the code, it is no longer obvious what the nesting
> of XML elements is supposed to be - they are all the level.
I concur with Daniel here - I debated about dropping the leading
whitespace and using a lot more virBufferAdjustIndent when first
writing this series (since it would have been less work to convert
from my v1, where I had already removed all the leading whitespace
anyways), but it just doesn't scale as well. My end decision was to
only remove whitespace and start at level 0 just for the functions
that can be called from multiple locations; single-use call-chains
were easier to keep indented as they were before the series.
The only reason I used virBufferAdjustIndent inside
virSysinfoProcessorFormat, against the rule of thumb that I generally
used of keeping the in-function indentation, was to fit things in 80
columns.
I agree with you and that's a reasonable reason.:-)
>
> ACK, virBufferEscapeString nicely simplifies the code :)
Pushed.