Re: Proposal of API change

[Philip Van Hoof <spam pvanhoof be>]

On Wed, 2008-05-21 at 17:48 +0200, Sergio Villar Senin wrote:
> Philip Van Hoof escribiu:
> > On Wed, 2008-05-21 at 17:05 +0200, Sergio Villar Senin wrote:
> > 
> 
> > So rather than an API change, just make the cancel asynchronous? Note
> > that this implies that a cancel happens less early. Sounds a bit strange
> > to me ... to want to cancel asynchronously.
> 
> I don't really want to make it async, but to implement it using async
> calls in order not to get those hangs. The problem is that the error
> parameter makes no sense in those cases, that's why it needs an API change.

I'll be honest :)

I'm a bit agnostic about the API here. So feel free to make a patch and
propose any changes that sound right for you. I'll take a look, but it's
likely that I'll accept any typical API change.


Although we really need to start thinking about an API freeze for 1.0 

We will need to bite that bullet sooner or later!



-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be