Re: g_signal_*

[Tim Janik <timj gtk org>]

On 14 Jun 2001, Owen Taylor wrote:

> 
> Johannes Stezenbach <js convergence de> writes:
> 
> > Owen Taylor wrote:
> > > 
> > >  3b) Modify the prototype of g_signal_connect_object() to match.
> > 
> > I think it is confusing that g_signal_connect_object() vs.
> > g_signal_connect() are not like gtk_signal_connect_object()
> > vs. gtk_signal_connect().

> Yes, I thought about adding this to the list of things to
> fix.
> 
> While g_signal_connect_object() is a reasonable name by
> itself, the fact that it is something completely different
> than gtk_signal_connect_object() is a problem.
>  
> > Maybe more a documentation than an API issue:
> > 
> > When would I use g_signal_connect_object()?
> 
> g_signal_connect_object() is a variant of g_signal_connect()
> to be used when the 'data' object is a GObject. Using this
> has two benefits:
> 
>  - Somewhat similar to gtk_signal_connect_while_alive(), 
>    if the object passed as data goes away, the signal 
>    connection will be removed.
> 
>  - While the signal is being invoked, an additional reference 
>    count is added to the data object, possibly preventing 
>    reentrancy problems.
> 
> As you point, unlike gtk_signal_connect_object(), 
> g_signal_connect_object does NOT imply G_CONNECT_SWAPPED.
> Which will definitely confuse people.

gtk_signal_connect_object() jsut needs to be deprecated, the
name is misleading in the first place.

> > Why aren't gtk_signal_connect_full() and g_object_connect()
> > implemented using g_signal_connect_object() but via
> > g_signal_connect_data()?
> 
> Should be obvious from the above - unless we know the
> data member is a GObject, we can't use g_signal_connect_object.
> 
> Regards,
>                                         Owen
> 

---
ciaoTJ