Re: GIO API review

[Mikael Hallendal <micke imendio com>]

14 dec 2007 kl. 09.27 skrev Alexander Larsson:

Hi,

> On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 19:19 +0100, Mikael Hallendal wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Eh, why would we not use these for anything other than GIO. They were
> specifically designed to be generic and to be used by other APIs.

Please re-read the start of the paragraph you quoted. If this is the  
case, all the better.

> Anything that has cancellable operations (things like libsoup or
> whateveR) should use GCancellable.

Perfect!

> > Without any namespace other than g_ it gives the idea that these
> > "frameworks" are used for more than one subsystem (at least to me).
>
> Which is why they are good names, as this is the intention.

Then we agree.

> > GAsync, GCancellable, g_push, g_pop, g_loadable, g_simple are  
> > examples
> > of namespaces that would benefit from being under the GIO name spaced
> > as they are too generic by themselves.
>
> A few of these are unnecessary taking up namespace, and I'm working on
> fixing these.

And here too. :)

Cheers,
  Mikael Hallendal

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