Re: [Evolution-hackers] ESourceExtension and backends... "claimed" generic property ?

[Milan Crha <mcrha redhat com>]

On Tue, 2013-02-05 at 17:22 +0900, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
> Would it make sense to include some property on the base
> ESourceExtension class ?
> 
> For instance, an api such as 'e_source_extension_claim()' could
> be introduced and called by the consumer of the given extensions.

	Hi,
this is doable now too, with the e_source_has_extension(), and with the
automatic add-new-or-return-current e_source_get_extension() behaviour,
though there are couple tricky parts, like:
a) the backend should use e_source_get_extension() on each extension
   it uses - might be no problem, though, at least after the open phase
b) autosave the ESource change - if in a) a new extension was added,
   even one with all default values (because backends use to access
   ESource extensions in a "read-only" way), then the ESource should
   be saved, but it's not done automatically currently.
c) wait on the client side for the updated ESource - this is discussed
   in another thread. Here is just that the factory is a client for
   source registry, same as the client of the factory.

I faced couple times that made changes in ESource, even indirectly, by
changing values in CamelSettings descendant, were not saved
automatically, an explicit call was required, even from camel, which has
no idea of ESource (it's currently compiled as the first thing in eds).

Matthew, please correct me if I'm wrong in any points. Thanks.
	Bye,
	Milan