On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 05:00:05AM -0500, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 5:39:52 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > FWIW, the virObject framework as it exists today was just the bare > > minimum we needed in order to get a basic inheritance system up and > > running in libvirt. I rather expected that we would extend it in the > > future to add further concepts, inspired/borrowed from glib (which > > is what stimulated my creation of virObject in the first place). > > Why not just switch to GObject instead? > > I can kinda see the appeal in having our own, stripped > down and simplified version of GObject, but if we're going > to start adding back more features we might as well avoid > reinventing the wheel and take advantage of the existing, > battle-tested implementation. Libvirt has a policy that we don't abort the application on OOM. This rules out any use of GObject. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
