----- Original Message ----- > 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() ? The convention is also to name it to the file/object where it is created. So I'd prefer to keep channel_webdav prefix if you don't mind too much. > > > > > 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 > _______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel