On Wed, 2014-11-26 at 13:58 +0100, Marc-André Lureau wrote: > Hi > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 11:49 PM, Jonathon Jongsma <jjongsma@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I find this name a little inconsistent. Generally the first part of the > > function name indicates the type of object that this method belongs to. > > Except constructors, like here. But the convention for constructors is that the name of the function matches the name of the returned type. For example: FooType* foo_type_new() So I would expect a constructor named channel_webdav_server_new() to return an object of type ChannelWebdavServer rather than PhodavServer. I realize this might sound pedantic, but it does make it easier to understand the code at a glance if conventions are followed. What about something like phodav_server_new_for_spice_session() ? > > > So I'd expect channel_webdav_server_new() to take a SpiceWebdavChannel* > > as its first argument, but it takes a SpiceSession* instead. So it seems > > that spice_session_webdav_server_new() would be a more appropriate name? > > Maybe even move it along to spice-session.c since its only caller just > > got moved there? > > It can't easily, the constructor sets up callback in channel-webdav. > ok _______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel