José Alburquerque wrote:
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
I was sort of thinking of having a Gst::Bus::enable_message_signal()
and a Gst::Bus::disable_message_signal() (for the message signal) and
then having methods like Gst::Bus::add_watch() and
Gst::Bus::add_watch(priority) for the slots.
|
