Re: [Evolution-hackers] Some minor Camel API breaks

On Mon, 2012-08-13 at 14:56 -0400, Matthew Barnes wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-08-13 at 19:00 +0100, Philip Withnall wrote:
> > This is all great work! Just a point to note: Telepathy uses the
> > convention of calling refcounting getters ‘_dup_’ (e.g.
> > “camel_session_dup_service()”) rather than ‘_ref_’. This seems better
> > (imo) because ‘ref’ could get confused with a reference-count-increasing
> > function which _doesn’t_ return the reference. If it’s not too late,
> > perhaps Camel could be changed to use this ‘_dup_’ convention instead?
> I actually like 'ref' better and am already using it throughout the new
> ESource APIs in Evolution-Data-Server.
> The lack of consistency across libraries is a little annoying, but I
> find this convention easiest to remember:

Ah, I didn’t realise you were also using ‘_dup_’. Explained like that,
your convention makes perfect sense. :-)

Is this documented anywhere (perhaps in an introductory section in the
EDS docs)?


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]