Re: [PATCH 0/2] Synchronous versions for asynchronous functions

[Iago Toral <itoral igalia com>]

On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 16:43:01 +0300, "Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)"
<zeenix gmail com> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Juan A. Suarez Romero
> <jasuarez igalia com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 08:22 +0200, Iago Toral wrote:
>> So anyone is strongly against it, I'll add this synchronous functions.
>>
>> But before continuing, are you OK with using grl_media_source_browse()
>> for synchronous function and grl_media_source_browse_async() for
>> asynchronous version?
>>
>> For what I seen so far, seems the standard way is suffixing asynchronous
>> functions with _async() word.
> 
>    I strongly recommend not prefixing async variants but rather the
> sync variants. IMHO gio got that wrong. As async api should be the
> (strongly) recommended one, doing it the gio way may very well give
> people the opposite impression (i-e that async variants are just there
> for the sake of completion). In fact some some good hackers I talked
> to got this wrong.
> 
>    Anyway, just my 2 cents.

For the record, I think the same but I thought I was the only one thinking that 
;)

Iago