Re: [Multi-valued V2 (grilo) 11/12] core: Merge GrlDataMulti into GrlData

[Iago Toral <itoral igalia com>]

On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 10:39:36 +0100, "Juan A." Suárez Romero 
<jasuarez igalia com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-03-03 at 09:15 +0000, Iago Toral wrote:
> > > We can discuss if we can get rid of some of this functions, but 
> > that
> > > would change the API, so I prefer to keep it as it is, at least 
> > for
> > > some
> > > time, after we think which functions can be removed, and what
> > > functions
> > > should be renamed.
> >
> >  No, it won't change the API.
> >  What I am saying is that we should have grl_data_remove *only* but
> > its
> >  implementation should be that of grl_data_remove_property and we
> > should
> >  not have grl_data_remove_property, of course.
>
>
> Currently we have:
>
> void grl_data_remove (GrlData *data, GrlKeyID key);
>
> void grl_data_remove_related_keys (GrlData *data, GrlKeyID key, guint
> index);
>
> The first one is invoking second one with index == 0.
>
> If we want to keep the first one only, we would need to add the index
> parameter, and hence changing the api.

We need to have grl_data_remove and grl_data_remove_nth, just like with 
other APIs. An the point is that *both* should deal with the related 
keys transparently.

> > >
> > >> > But users can still remove a specific element if they really
> > want:
> > >> > get
> > >> > the property with the element, and then remove the key from 
> > that
> > >> > property.
> > >>
> > >>  Shouldn't we remove that API from GrlProperty then?
> > >
> > > The API to remove the key in GrlProperty is there to implement the
> > > grl_data_remove(), which acts on single-values (i.e., the first
> > value
> > > of
> > > multi-valued keys).
> >
> >  If it is there for internal use as you suggest here, then that's
> > fine
> >  with me, but then it should not be part of the public API, since as
> > I
> >  said, its use by clients could break the semantics of the related
> > keys,
> >  and I don't really see a good reason why they would like to use 
> > this
> >  instead of grl_data_remove (updated to deal with related keys)
> >
> > > Of course, I can still get rid of it, as doing
> > >
> > > grl_property_remove(prop, key)
> > >
> > > is almost the same as
> > >
> > > grl_property_set (prop, key, NULL)
> >
> >  But this is not exactly the same, as grl_property_set would 
> > actually
> >  leave the key with NULL value.
>
> Fair enough. I'll remove the function.

What function?
I am saying that I am ok with having the function as long as it is kept 
private to the framework and is not part of the public API.

Iago