'Twas brillig, and Tanu Kaskinen at 13/07/11 17:00 did gyre and gimble: > On Wed, 2011-07-13 at 15:37 +0100, Colin Guthrie wrote: >> 'Twas brillig, and Tanu Kaskinen at 13/07/11 14:29 did gyre and gimble: >>> Another thing came to my mind: what about having assertions for checking >>> that none of PA_SINK_HW_VOLUME_CTRL, PA_SINK_HW_MUTE_CTRL or >>> PA_SINK_SYNC_VOLUME are set? If the sink implementations can't control >>> the flags anyway, wouldn't it make sense to prevent them from trying? >> >> Not really sure where you suggest such a check goes. >> >> Do you mean e.g. before the initial call to >> pa_sink_set_flags_from_callbacks() inside pa_sink_put()? > > Yes. Fair enough but this approach is opposed to your other suggestion of using specific callback setters.... This assert doesn't make sense if a callback setter is used. Now.... which approach is best??..... :p I'm flip flopping between which one I want to do... both have disadvantages and advantages. The fact that the structures are not opaque and we call the callbacks directly from their member variables means that a setter feels slightly wrong, but by the same token this approach is already used elsewhere, so nothing major changes in that regard. I guess overall, using a setter feels slightly cleaner. I'll go with that. Col -- Colin Guthrie gmane(at)colin.guthr.ie http://colin.guthr.ie/ Day Job: Tribalogic Limited [http://www.tribalogic.net/] Open Source: Mageia Contributor [http://www.mageia.org/] PulseAudio Hacker [http://www.pulseaudio.org/] Trac Hacker [http://trac.edgewall.org/]
