On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 19:41 +0200, Georg Chini wrote: > On 03.10.2017 14:58, Tanu Kaskinen wrote: > > On Mon, 2017-10-02 at 14:32 +0200, Georg Chini wrote: > > > On 02.10.2017 11:31, Tanu Kaskinen wrote: > > > > On Sun, 2017-10-01 at 20:31 +0200, Georg Chini wrote: > > > > > On 01.10.2017 18:16, Tanu Kaskinen wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, 2017-08-19 at 17:48 +0200, Georg Chini wrote: > > > > > > > +/* List handlers */ > > > > > > > +char *pa_core_message_handler_list(pa_core *c); > > > > > > > > > > > > Putting this function to core-messages.h doesn't seem right to me. The > > > > > > function will never be used outside core.c, so the it should be a > > > > > > private function in core.c. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If I put it in core.c, I would need to expose the pa_core_message_handler > > > > > structure, which you wanted to keep private. > > > > > > > > I think it actually makes sense to make the struct public. It could be > > > > private if it didn't have the description field, but since the handler > > > > objects contain information that clients can query, they're similar to > > > > all other core objects. I think it even makes sense to move the struct > > > > to a separate message-handler.h header (but if you don't like that > > > > idea, I'm fine with keeping it in core-messaging.h or moving it to > > > > core.h). > > > > > > You want a header file just for this struct? I would keep it in > > > core-messages.h but if you prefer, I don't mind using a > > > separate file. > > > > Indeed, creating a separate header just for the struct definition > > doesn't make much sense. After thinking this a bit more, I still like > > the idea of having message-handler.[ch] for the message handler object, > > though. The message-handler.h header could include not only the struct > > definition, but also the following functions: > > > > pa_message_handler_new() > > (renamed from pa_core_message_handler_register()) > > pa_message_handler_free() > > (renamed from pa_core_message_handler_unregister) > > pa_message_handler_set_description() > > (renamed from pa_core_message_handler_set_description()) > > > > The only thing left in core-messaging.h would be > > pa_core_send_message(), and I'd move that to core.h. > > > > But do as you like, I don't care about this that much. > > > > I don't like using pa_message_handler_new() because the function > does not create a new message handler, but only registers it. As far as I can tell, the register() function that you wrote very much creates a new message handler object... > I don't > mind dropping the _core_ part from the names. I would then also > rename pa_core_send_message() to > pa_message_handler_send_message() and put it in the same header > file. I don't like renaming it to pa_message_handler_send_message(), because the function isn't a "method" (in OOP lingo) of a message handler. It fits better as a method of the core object. But again, do as you want. -- Tanu https://www.patreon.com/tanuk
