Re: Fixing the Gst::Message classes

[Murray Cumming <murrayc murrayc com>]

On Mon, 2007-12-10 at 19:44 -0500, José Alburquerque wrote:
> Murray Cumming wrote:
> > On Sun, 2007-12-09 at 00:58 -0500, José Alburquerque wrote:
> >   
> >> I was thinking of changing the "_CLASS_OPAQUE_REFCOUNTED(Message, 
> >> GstMessage, NONE, gst_message_ref, gst_message_unref)" line in 
> >> message.hg to something like "_CLASS_GOBJECT(Message, GstMessage, 
> >> GST_MESSAGE, Gst::MiniObject, GstMiniObject)".  Is this a good 
> >> approach?
> >>     
> >
> > GstMiniObject doesn't derived from GObject, right? So I don't think it
> > would be a good idea to use _CLASS_GOBJECT().
> >
> > I'm afraid that we might need a new macro, but you might try using
> > _CLASS_GENERIC() to see how far that gets us.
> >
> > I will take care of this if it does turn out to be difficult.
> >
> >   
> 
> I was thinking of writing similar "wrapping" functionality for 
> Gst::MiniObject as in Glib::ObjectBase/Glib::Object.  I thought of 
> taking wrap.{h,c} from glibmm and "modifying" them to work for 
> Gst::MiniObject/GstMiniObject and then modifying Gst::MiniObject to 
> include the "wrapper" functionality of Glib::ObjectBase and 
> Glib::Object.  I'm wondering if this would be worthwhile at this time.  
> Would it be?

I guess I'll take a look at this.

We won't be able to duplicate Glib::wrap() as it works for Glib::Object
because GstMiniObject lacks things from GObject that it needs, such as
object data and notification of destruction. But we should be able to do
something simpler that will be enough for us.

-- 
murrayc murrayc com
www.murrayc.com
www.openismus.com