Re: Introspection binary format comments




On Feb 25, 2005, at 6:02 PM, Owen Taylor wrote:

 - Terminology needs some work. I don't think 'interface' can be
   used for the things stored in 'entries', since that's confusing
   with GInterface.

Seconded.


 - Are we really confident that the type information for a
   metadata blob will fit into 64k? Creating a metadata blob
   for GTK+ probably will give us an answer for that ... if
   it's less than 32k, we are probably OK for just about
   any conceivable library.

What impact will this have on people using gtk+ and friends on embedded devices, where both RAM and ROM are expensive and there are month-long battles over a few kilobytes? Can the metadata be disabled at configure time?


 - For virtual functions, structure fields, boxed fields
   finding offsets requires walking over the lists of fields
   and applying architecture dependent knowledge of struct
   packing. Would it be better to just include the struct
   offset into the metadata blob?

Yes, please. No point in spreading the offset calculation logic all over the place, let the compiler keep it.


 - Do we need information about memory management for
   FieldBlob ... if I replace the value, do I need to free
   the old one? Or do we restrict FieldBlob to things that
   don't need memory management. (Think GtkTargetEntry
   which has a string...)

I often wonder that simply when writing in C. When i set a new background pixmap in a GtkStyle, am i supposed to unref the old one?


 - Do all StructBlob types have constructors? Or, do we
   want to support construction on the heap for things like
   GdkRectangle or GtkTargetEntry?

This is necessary for language bindings. Or did i misunderstand your intent?


--
"Ears! They help us -- Ears! They help us hear th-- Ea--E--E--E--Ears!"
  -- A Sesame Street singing toy, with Yvonne gleefully pressing
    the button over and over and over and over and...




[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]