Re: Filtering by type

[Iago Toral <itoral igalia com>]

On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 16:24:08 +0100, "Juan A." Suárez Romero 
<jasuarez igalia com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-01-24 at 14:58 +0000, Iago Toral wrote:
> >  So summing up, my opinion is that we should discard the idea of
> >  filtering using flags and focus only on adding the filter API. 
> > Sorry
> >  that I did not mention this explicitly in the email were I proposed
> > to
> >  add a filtering API, I thought it would be obvious that it was
> > intended
> >  to be a complement of this option.
>
>
> The proposal was a quick way of restricting results to a type of 
> objects
> that I'm interesting it, with no changes in the api. And it wasn't
> intended as an alternative or replacement of your proposal. In this
> case, for other types of filter (by date, by artist, whatever), user
> would need to use your proposal.

Once you realize that you need to change the API to cover the basic 
cases, a proposal that does not change the API and cover less than the 
basic cases does not make sense any more.

> I don't mind to forget about it and just focus in the filtering API, 
> as
> you said. But then, will that API help me to do all my operations and
> restrict everything to the type of data I'm interesting in?
> That is, when I browse, I only want to get only the kind of medias 
> that
> my application was designed for.

There is no reason why we cannot do this for browse too if it makes 
sense.

> In fact, I was thinking about adding
> API to load only plugins that can provide a specific kind of media.
> Thus, for my ImageViewer use-case, I would only load Image providers,
> and not Audio nor Video.

Well, that's a different topic that has nothing to do with this 
discussion. Here you are talking about loading plugins that have 
specific characteristics, and yes, we should have API for that in the 
future, but here we are talking about a different thing.

Iago