Re: [g-a-devel]Re: proto at-spi patch ...

[Bill Haneman <bill haneman sun com>]

Michael Meeks wrote:
...
> > I would prefer that you keep the keygrab work separate as it is more
> > dangerous and more likely to be rejected as a patch;
> 
>         I'm about to split that out - although I think that I've got the issues
> under control now.

Thanks

>         I believe the only change I made to spi_controller_grab_keyboard was
> removing the O(n*n) list iteration on the GList, making it a plain
> iteration instead.

OK, that's good.

[regarding renaming SpiDeviceEventController to SpiController]
> > I would prefer not to make that kind of API change now, we are in
> > 'freeze' or at least we must argue for such changes to the release team.
> 
>         This is not an API chance since these files are not installed, and are
> totally private to registryd, indeed why they are in the Spi namespace
> at all is a good question.

Mm, well, OK, but I still find SpiDeviceEventController better since it
reflects the IDL interface Accessibility::DeviceEventController.  Maybe
SpiDEController ?

>         So I'll split the patch, fixup the X polling and re-submit. The const
> on the events is the only important API change that we need to push out
> - we can't afford to have people poking with the event structure we pass
> them from cspi.

Right, I agree.  Thanks!

-Bill

>         Regards,
> 
>                 Michael.
> 
> --
>  mmeeks gnu org  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gnome-accessibility-devel mailing list
> Gnome-accessibility-devel gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-accessibility-devel