Re: gstmm add element to pipeline test



Murray Cumming wrote:
I think we should do this in C++ much as it is done in C:
- We should have an add_watch(priority) that just causes the signal to
be emitted.
and
- We should have an add_watch(slot) that provides a sigc::slot that is
called. We have lots of these set_func(slot)-like functions in gtkmm.

Hi.  I'm trying to implement these GstBus "watch" functions and I have a quick question.  AFAICT, GstBus has the following "watch" functions:

gst_bus_add_watch(GstBus*, GstBusFunc func, gpointer)
gs_bus_add_watch_full(GstBus*, gint priority, GstBusFunc func, gpointer data, GDestroyNotify notify)
gst_bus_add_signal_watch(GstBus*)
gst_bus_add_signal_watch_full(GstBus*, gint priority)
gst_bus_remove_signal_watch(GstBus*)

As I understand, the first two will be wrapped using slots while the last three deal with enabling/disabling the Gst::Bus "message" signal.  My question is:  When these functions are wrapped, should similar names be used for the methods (eg. Gst::Bus::add_signal_watch() for gst_bus_add_signal_watch)?

-Jose





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