Re: #50218 - Notification on write-only properties is questionable/problematic

[Tim Janik <timj gtk org>]

On 28 Mar 2001, Owen Taylor wrote:

> 
> Tim Janik <timj gtk org> writes:
> 
> > On 26 Mar 2001, Owen Taylor wrote:
> > 
> > > I think you were in agreement that notification on write-only properties
> > > was a bad idea. 
> > > 
> > > What was the concrete step to take here - something like the following
> > > patch?
> > > 
> > > Regards,
> > >                                         Owen
> > > 
> > 
> > > -      NotifyQueue *nqueue = object_freeze_notifies (object);
> > > +      NotifyQueue *nqueue;
> > > +
> > > +      g_return_if_fail (pspec->flags & G_PARAM_READABLE != 0);
> > > +
> > > +      nqueue = object_freeze_notifies (object);
> > 
> > dude, you're cruel! ;)
> > shouldn't we just silently ignore this?
> 
> Hmmm, if g_object_notify (SOME_WRITEONLY_PROPERTY) does nothing,
> then its a bug to call it, and we should warn, right? 
> 
> Otherwise, some poor programmer is going to be trying to figure out
> why they aren't getting notified of the changes that they are
> notifying.
> 
> > also this would still queue changes for g_obejct_set(), so i'll add the
> > check to object_queue_property():
> 
> OK, silently ignoring it there is needed, but it still seems to
> me that we should warn when someone tries to do it explicitely.

hum, i'm not so sure g_object_notify (SOME_WRITEONLY_PROPERTY) should
be considered a bug. if we silently ignore it, readability of a property
can be easily changed during development phase without having to get rid
of all notify calls currently there (and worse, adding them back if you
later decide !readable wasn't such a good idea).


> 
> Regards,
>                                         Owen
> 

---
ciaoTJ