Re: [Vala] Chaining up constructors.

[Jürg Billeter <j bitron ch>]

On Sun, 2008-11-23 at 14:01 -0500, Yu Feng wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-11-23 at 11:32 +0100, Jürg Billeter wrote:
> > On Sun, 2008-11-23 at 05:07 -0500, Yu Feng wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2008-11-23 at 11:00 +0100, Jürg Billeter wrote:
> > > > You should use "private set" here instead of "construct" with the new
> > > > construction scheme. This shouldn't cause any issues.
> > >
> > > The situation is:
> > > (1) I need j to be a construct property because the object eventually is
> > > going to be created with g_object_new.
> >
> > What's the reason that you use g_object_new to create the object?

Any response to that?

> > Would it be possible to create the object with default values first and
> > set the properties later?
> Practically that works, but ...
> After these properties(nodeName of a DOM.Node) are initialized by
> g_object_new, they should never be modified. In the specification they
> are stated as 'read-only'.
>
> If I modify them later, I have to make them writable. Besides gobject
> doesn't have a built-in 'private set' property concept. Keep in mind
> some language bindings can use g_object_set/set property to get and set
> properties, therefore the paramspec for the property has to precisely
> describe the property's behavior.

'private set' (and in the future also 'internal set') should not mark
the property as writable in the paramspec, as the paramspec should
represent the public interface, not the internal/private.

Jürg