Re: GIO API review

On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 14:43 +0100, Michael Natterer wrote:
> Alexander Larsson wrote:
> > It just adds new types and type relations you have to learn, and forces
> > you to remember that you have to cast to some common class to do things
> > like cancelling a directory monitor. It adds nothing useful to the user
> > of the API, it just means you have to learn more and remember more.
> But we have casts all over the place in gobject/gtk+. And the APIs of
> both classes is 100% *identical*. You can't seriously argue against a
> common interface. In this case, having a common base class strikes
> me almost as a no-brainer.
> How would you justify having the *exactly* same API twice on two very
> closely related classes? I would rather argue that having to learn
> only *one* GMonoitor API is much more obvious and straightforward.
> The actual implementation details (the fact that there are subclasses
> at all) could be almost invisible in the public API.
> - two closely related classes
> - two identical APIs
> -> common base class
> *please* :-)

I don't think is so important, so sure, lets do this.

However, what would the name of the base class be? GMonitor? That
strikes me as a bit to generic. GFileSystemMonitor? GChangeMonitor?

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