On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 07:36:27AM -0500, Ben Guthro wrote:
I'll answer for Dave, while I'm looking at this.
As far as I know, Dave is of the opinion that we are just "getting lucky" using the APIs as we are, and remains convinced that his suggested change is necessary here.
He (and I) remain worried that release of the EventImpl API without this API change could get us into trouble in the future, as we would have to support the released API that has different semantics than DBus, which we were supposed to be modeled closely to.
You had sounded convinced it was not necessary the last we heard though... and ultimatley we don't have checkin permissions...so we'll go with whatever you guys decide.
Basically, there is no downside to implementing your suggestion of allowing the same FD to be registered, and a clear potential downside to our current impl. So I'll re-write the Add/RemoveHandle API as you suggested to eliminate the risk Daniel -- |: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://ovirt.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|