Re: Discouraging use of sync APIs

[Debarshi Ray <rishi is lostca se>]

On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 11:14:46AM +0000, Philip Withnall wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-02-09 at 10:57 +0000, Debarshi Ray wrote:
> > One convention that I like is to use a _sync suffix for sync APIs,
> > instead of an _async suffix for async ones, because it lets me spot
> > synchronous calls with grep.
> >
> > A little sad that there are things like g_file_read that are sync, not
> > async.
>
> We had a brief discussion about that at the DX hackfest, and I think the
> consensus was that the current naming scheme (no suffix = sync, ?_async?
> suffix = async) is unfortunate, but has to be kept for consistency
> reasons. It would be really confusing to switch to a new scheme while
> keeping the old one. :-(

There is really no consistency at the moment. eg., see
g_dbus_proxy_new and the code generated by gdbus-codegen. It differs
from class to class and module to module.

We can't break API, so atleast for future additions it would be good
to use a better convention.

Cheers,
Debarshi