Re: [libvirt] [libvirt-glib] Add gvir_domain_get_saved()
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 05:56:19PM +0200, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Christophe Fergeau
<cfergeau(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> 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).
Yes, and I'm not saying we should go this way.
>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.
This is such a small annoyance that noone will complain only about it, but
the difference between an okayish API and a great API to use lies in all
these small details. I'm quite sure I've seen people making fun of
_get_has_xxx though. And you also agreed that _is_ was better than _get_ in
that email link I gave: "I admit that sounds better", so it's not just me
(and I think most people would say _is_xxx is better, and not many people
would answer upfront "oh, all g* APIs use get_xxx so you should use this").
> 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. :)
Why? You are the one insisting that the vala bindings are as efficient as
possible, it would be nice to know exactly what options we have.
Christophe
Attachments:
- attachment.sig (application/pgp-signature — 198 bytes)