On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 07:36:27AM -0500, Ben Guthro wrote: > I'll answer for Dave, while I'm looking at this. > > As far as I know, Dave is of the opinion that we are just "getting lucky" > using the APIs as we are, and remains convinced that his suggested change > is necessary here. > > He (and I) remain worried that release of the EventImpl API without this > API change could get us into trouble in the future, as we would have to > support the released API that has different semantics than DBus, which > we were supposed to be modeled closely to. > > You had sounded convinced it was not necessary the last we heard though... > and ultimatley we don't have checkin permissions...so we'll go with > whatever you guys decide. Basically, there is no downside to implementing your suggestion of allowing the same FD to be registered, and a clear potential downside to our current impl. So I'll re-write the Add/RemoveHandle API as you suggested to eliminate the risk Daniel -- |: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://ovirt.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :| -- Libvir-list mailing list Libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list