Re: RFC: Operation Options API proposal

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

On Tue, 2011-03-29 at 18:35 +0200, Guillaume Emont wrote:
> The helpers function _get_value() _set_value() *allow* you to store
> (key, value). If you think the needs of your option are not fulfilled
> by
> that, you can add things in ->priv.
> GrlOperationOptions is mainly a placeholder for options you want to
> pass
> to operations (hence its name), but any API that makes sense can be
> added, and it can (should) be implemented in a clever way inside the
> object.
> 
> The get_value()/set_value() is a helper for the options that fit in
> its
> case, and it is exposed to allow extensibility in plugins/applications
> that do not (or cannot) modify core. Though maybe this feature is
> overkill and we should not expose these methods. 


Ok, so that changes a little bit my understanding, because I thought we
should rely on those get/set_value() to implement all options, as well
as I thought you must store everything in those (key,value) storage.

In this case, I agree we should make those get/set functions an internal
function, and not expose them to public, at least while we do not have a
final prototype of options/caps to see if it's worth to do it.


	J.A.