Re: giomm API review needed

On Feb 4, 2008 3:57 PM, Murray Cumming <murrayc murrayc com> wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-02-03 at 16:56 -0500, José Alburquerque wrote:
> > > - Vfs - missing
> > > - IOModule - missing
> These seem like entry points that have to be implemented by extension
> modules, rather than functions that an application should want to call,
> so I guess we shouldn't wrap them. But I'm not sure. Opinions?

I agree here, although I do not know if there is an email or document
stating that for GVfs specifically either (for GIOModule there is a comment
in the header - "Opaque module base class for extending GIO").


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