Re: [libvirt] [libvirt-glib] Add gvir_domain_get_saved()
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 05:25:30PM +0200, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)
wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 05:08:12PM +0200, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
> >> (We already discussed at length why this
> >> is needed and we are already doing it for other boolean getters so
> >> lets not have the discussion about this need, again).
> >
> > Actually this was discussed for libosinfo, not libvirt-glib, here is the
> > relevant email for those who were wondering about this discussion:
> >
> > https://www.redhat.com/archives/virt-tools-list/2011-November/msg00090.html
>
> Ah ok but both libraries are meant to be first-class g* citizens and
> hence the same need to follow the usual conventions unless there is a
> compelling reason not to.
Making the C API as nice as possible to users is a very compelling reason
to me since we are writing a C library (emphasis on the "to me", I know we
disagree :)
Indeed we do. :)
This naming convention for getters is probably only useful for vala,
I
think bindings for dynamic languages will introspect object properties at
runtime and use g_object_get().
Well, vala will also do the same but setting properties through that
is known to be considerably slower than using the getter/setter
directly (because of the type checks etc invovled in case of
g_object_get).
So the decision to make is between making
the API nicer to read for C users VS making life slightly easier for some
bindings.
That is not the decision at all for me since I don't see anyone other
than you complaining about the various gtk+ APIs following this
convention. If you can cite examples of C developers complaining about
it, that would be convincing argument to me. Otherwise, the decision
to me is all about following a usual convention *that we already
follow* and in turn make valac produce more efficient bindings vs
making you happy.
Would a Rename to: annotation help vala here? Or is there some
annotation I
don't know of to mark property getters/setters?
Maybe? But I don't think we are that desperate yet. :)
--
Regards,
Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)
FSF member#5124