Re: [PATCH 00/15] Capabilities and Options

["Juan A. Suarez Romero" <jasuarez igalia com>]

On Fri, 2011-12-02 at 18:36 +0100, gemont igalia com wrote:
> The operation options consist in an object passed for each operation
> (_resolve(), _browse(), _search(), _query()) to specify "options" that
> define
> how the operation should be carried out. As of this patchset, the list
> of
> options is rather limited (skip, count and flags, which were
> previously passed
> as individual arguments), but the big advantage of this approach is
> its
> extensibility: new options can be added without breaking API or ABI. I
> have
> other patch sets waiting that depends on this extensibility to add the
> ability
> to filter results. 


Just a brief question: why we not name grl_operation_options_foo() to
just grl_options_foo()?

I think a shorter name would be easier to remember and type, and it
would be more similar to grl_caps_foo().

I know that we added the "_operation_" tag because those options are
related with operations, but to be honest, I don't envision any other
place where "options" will be added, so I think it would be safe to just
skip that "_operation_" tag.

Just a proposal, but what do you think?

	J.A.