Re: GIO API review

[Richard Hult <richard imendio com>]

Mikael Hallendal wrote:
> I just wanted to clarify though that it's not so much for technical  
> reasons I suggested that we namespace a bit more carefully.
>
> For example, if we plan to never use the GAsync infrastructure for  
> anything other than GIO there is a point to put it under the GIO  
> namespace as it shows where it belongs and what part of GLib it is  
> used for. It also means we can have GFooAsync later without the two  
> getting confused with each other. The same for GCancellable and  
> similar namespaces.

And in this particular example, g_async_*, there is already a clash: we 
have g_async_queue_* right now, which is unrelated of course. A slightly 
longer name to avoid confusion here would be a fairly low price to pay 
in terms of typing. And I don't agree that it would be harder to read 
code with slightly longer names, on the contrary, at least when the 
added part is reasonably long. If it's clear what subsystem the function 
is related to, the developer doesn't have to stop to think.

/Richard

--
Imendio AB, http://www.imendio.com/