On 11/03/2011 08:22 PM, Tanu Kaskinen wrote: > Review below. Slightly bigger complaints this time :/ > Hmm, I think your "-- Tanu" line makes Thunderbird skips quoting the rest of the message, which is slightly inconvenient. Are other people having the same trouble? >> + pa_assert(status != PA_PORT_AVAILABLE_UNKNOWN); > Why? I don't think we can guarantee that we will never lose track of > port availability. To me, there are only two classes; ports without availability info (always unknown), and ports with availability info (always toggling between yes and no). Do you see a reasonable use case where we'll lose the availability? > I'd like ports to have their own subscription class. I also think that could be nice, and I looked into that, but as I understand it, it would require every port to be registered with the core (so it gets an index that is used when things change) and several API additions to make it useful. > I don't like that core parameter. The port should know by itself which > core it belongs to. Ok. -- David Henningsson, Canonical Ltd. http://launchpad.net/~diwic
