On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 06:49:01AM -0500, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 06:07:18PM +0000, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
> > > SndChannel -> SndChannelClient
> > > SndWorker -> SndChannel
> >
> > I'd expect an explanation as to why what was called a SndChannel so far
> > really is a SndChannelClient (as it's going to inherit from
> > RedChannelClient in the future). Ditto for SndWorker->SndChannel
> >
>
> For the explanation I don't really know. I can imagine that as only
> one client is supported and channel/client objects are not used the
> usage of "SndChannel" make sense implementing client/server code.
> For SndWorker I think Worker is quite a generic term for "code that
> does something specific", in this case code that deal with sound.
>
> From history this names came from the first commit in git so
> not much explanation. However I can see
>
> struct SndWorker {
> Channel base;
> VDInterface *interface;
> SndChannel *connection;
> SndWorker *next;
> };
>
> so I can assume that the SndWorker was always though as a RedChannel
> (Channel in this commit is the current RedChannel).
>
> What about (suggestions welcome):
>
> "SndWorker was always based on RedChannel (formerly Channel) while
> SndChannel always deals with client so moving to current naming
> it's less coherent to rename SndChannel to SndChannelClient and
> SndWorker to SndChannel."
something like
"SndWorker has been historically based on RedChannel, initial git commit
has:
struct SndWorker {
Channel base;
...
};
SndChannel, contrary to what its name may imply is more focused on
marshalling/sending of sound data, which is the responsibility of
RedChannelClient for the other SPICE channels.
This commit makes the naming of these 2 types more consistent with how
the rest of the code is structured."
Christophe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel