Re: [gnome-db] API Changes

["Vivien Malerba" <vmalerba gmail com>]

On 1/14/07, Daniel Espinosa <esodan gmail com> wrote:
> 2007/1/13, Vivien Malerba <vmalerba gmail com>:
> > On 1/13/07, Daniel Espinosa <esodan gmail com> wrote:
> > > 2007/1/12, Murray Cumming <murrayc murrayc com>:
> > > > On Fri, 2007-01-12 at 14:17 -0600, Daniel Espinosa wrote:
> > > > > I plan to do the following API changes:
> > > > >
> > > > > In libgda:
> > > > >
> > > > > gda_query_field_is_parameter to gda_query_field_get_is_parameter
> > > > >
>
> I supose this chante is Ok done.
>
> > > > > gda_entity_field_get_g_type to gda_entity_field_get_data_type
> >
> > I'd prefer you don't change that las one as it's a kind of
> > "convention" in the Libgda's API (I mean get_g_type to get a GType),
> > to avoid confusion because "data type" can also refer to the
> > GdaDictType or the DBMS type.
> >
>
> may be get_data_g_type enstead?, this is just to help in C# binginds

Seems good as long as it ends with g_type.

> > > >
> > > > Sounds good to me.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'm preparing the patch...
> > >
> > > > > A sugestion:
> > > > >
> > > > > Could I move the gda_dict_field_set_dict_type as a virtual method in
> > > > > GdaEntityField (as a gda_entity_field_set_dict_type)?
> > > > > This is to avoid some errors in API autogeneration in C# bindings
> > > > > (there are other methods to avoid this using Gda.metadata rules, then
> > > > > this isn't a problem).
> >
> > Ok, as there is already a get_dict_type() method.
> >
>
> Ok done.

Ok. BTW did you get your SVN account?