On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 1:01 AM, Daniel P. Berrange <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:16:11PM +0100, Christophe Fergeau wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 09:51:34AM +0100, Christophe Fergeau wrote: >> > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 02:26:02AM +0200, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: >> > > + */ >> > > +gboolean gvir_domain_get_saved(GVirDomain *dom) >> > >> > The naming needs to be more explicit, libvirt will suspend the domain after >> > a call to virDomainSave or virDomainManagedSave, the current name only >> > checks for the latter state. I'd go for >> > gvir_domain_has_managed_save_image(); >> >> I see this patch has been pushed to master with this part unchanged and no >> discussion whatsoever on the list, what happened there? > > Oh, I ACK'd his new patch, without noticing your message in this > thread. > > I tend to agree with your suggestion to rename to > > gvir_domain_has_managed_save_image() I disagree. I think we'd want a property for this too and that means we need to keep the 'get' prefix and the string after that should correspond the property name (We already discussed at length why this is needed and we are already doing it for other boolean getters so lets not have the discussion about this need, again). I think gvir_domain_get_saved() might not be descriptive enough but it doesn't cause any confusion either so if its purpose is not clear from the signature, developer will read the (a few words of) docs for it and know what it does. Another reason I don't like the suggested name is that its giving out details that I dont want app developer to care/know about: image. What user needs to care is whether or not the domain in question has a saved state or not that it could be restored to, that is it. He doesn't even need to know what is 'managed' cause we are only providing APIs for 'managed' saving. -- Regards, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) FSF member#5124 -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list