Re: [gupnp] More on multinet

[Hugo <hugo calleja gmail com>]

Hi

Why not just a signal with a gboolean

public signal void control_point_available (ControlPoint control_point, gboolean available);

Personally I prefer to connect one callback to a signal instead of two.

Hugo

2009/7/17 Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) <zeenix gmail com>

Hi guys,
 Now that we have ContextManager in gupnp, applications now need not
worry about network interfaces going up and down. However, they still
need to manage the creation and destruction of control point and/or
root devices as the contexts come and go. I had been thinking on how
to best solve this problem without cluttering the API and I came-up
with the following proposal (in Vala syntax):

class GUPnP.ControlPointManager {
  public signal void control_point_available (ControlPoint control_point);
  public signal void control_point_unavailable (ControlPoint control_point);

  public ControlPointManager (ContextManager context_manager,
                                                    string
        target);

  public List<ControlPoint> list_control_points ();
}

 and a similar class for RootDevice. While I can write this soon but
I thought I take some advice before adding all this manager non-sense
to gupnp. :)

--
Regards,

Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)
FSF member#5124
--
To unsubscribe send a mail to gupnp+unsubscribe\@o-hand.com