Re: Caps and Options update

[Guillaume Emont <gemont igalia com>]

On 05/04/2011 13:25, Juan A. Suárez Romero wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 07:51 +0000, Iago Toral wrote:
>>
>>  In that case, ok. FWIW, I think of pagination and flags as something 
>>  that are expected to be there for any source, I expect them to be 
>>  options but not caps. 
> 
> 
> Just take this comment with care, and discard it if it is a non-sense :)
> 
> Since GrlCaps contains plugins capabilities (that is, features that some
> plugins can implement and others not), and GrlOperationOptions contains
> options (choices that user may freely desire to use or not), and that
> flags and pagination is something that all plugins must implement, and
> users must set (in the case of flags, not setting it is like setting to
> GRL_RESOLVE_NONE), I wonder if it is too premature to get rid of those
> options from the browse/search/... API and put them in those
> caps/options.
> 
> I know that we already mentioned about that, but I'm still not very sure
> if we need to do it right now, specially when we are not thinking on
> making them an option in the near future.
> 
> But as I said, just ignore this comment if you still think it is worth
> to go with that ;)

Considering we have to break the API to introduce GrlOperationOptions, I
think it is worth it to move pagination stuff and flags there. Doing it
later would mean breaking API twice. I do plan  to remove them from caps
though, they are there for illustrative purpose, and shouldn't be there
when caps are merged in the main branch.

Also, if we want to ensure consistency for the way plugins react to
unset options, we can have core add default values for some options that
were not specified (mainly: flags=GRL_RESOLVE_NORMAL, skip=0, count=-1)
> 
> 
> 	J.A.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> grilo-list mailing list
> grilo-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/grilo-list
>