Hit 'reply' instead of 'reply-all'. :( ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) <zeeshanak@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 4:47 PM Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 06/11] Add OsinfoInstallConfig:config-params property To: Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau@xxxxxxxxxx> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 10:53:34AM +0100, Christophe Fergeau wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 03:42:17AM +0200, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: >> > On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 3:13 AM, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) >> > <zeeshanak@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Christophe Fergeau >> > > <cfergeau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> This property lists the parameters that can be set for a given >> > >> OsinfoInstallConfig. This is not enforced, it's only there for >> > >> informative purpose. This will also be used in later commits >> > >> in order to automatically apply transformations on values >> > >> for parameters which have an associated OsinfoDatamap. >> > > >> > > Since there is already a very similar property in OsinfoInstallScript, >> > > I'm afraid this will cause confusion for app developers. Is there no >> > > way we can achieve the same goals through the existing API? >> > >> > Later commits clarifies things quite a bit so take that comment as: >> > Perhaps this should be internal API? >> >> I assume you are talking about osinfo_install_config_get_config_params >> and osinfo_install_config_set_config_params as the GObject property can't >> really be made private? I _think_ this API could be useful as a public API, >> but I'm fine with making it private for now and exporting it when we see a >> real need for it. > > Thinking a bit more about this, if we make these private then it's better > to make osinfo_install_config_new_for_script public and to advocate using > it instead of osinfo_install_config_new, otherwise it's pretty weird to > have this config-params property which will always be NULL as far as > the library user can see. Or we don't expose config-params as property? We can just have the getter/setter for now. Also, wasn't there a way to make properties private? -- Regards, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) FSF member#5124 -- Regards, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) FSF member#5124 _______________________________________________ Libosinfo mailing list Libosinfo@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libosinfo
