On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 10:46:22AM -0500, David Lively wrote: > On Fri, 2008-11-14 at 14:11 +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > 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. > > Yep. > > > 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 > > Thank you! If you'd rather, I'd be happy to make those changes (today) > and submit a patch. (But I haven't implemented them yet, other than > changing the decls and documentation.) that make it clear that we need to postpone the release by at least a few days, so shooting for early/mid next week as a result. Daniel -- Daniel Veillard | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxx | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/ http://veillard.com/ | virtualization library http://libvirt.org/ -- Libvir-list mailing list Libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list