On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 04:27:57AM -0500, Frediano Ziglio wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2017-02-07 at 11:59 +0100, Christophe Fergeau wrote: > > > > Although I think it's a little bit unfortunate that we need to expose > > another function in red-channel.h, it does seem to make more sense this > > way. The 'opaque' variable is a RedChannelClient[1], it makes more > > sense that this handler function is a client "method" rather than a > > channel method. > > > > [1] speaking of which, why is it opaque instead of a RedChannelClient*? > > Maybe that will be addressed later in this series... > > > > Acked-by: Jonathon Jongsma <jjongsma@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > About exposing red_channel_on_output. > The 2 classes are really coupled together. Why not adding a red-channel-private.h > storing function used just for this coupling? We could also prefix the > functions with underscore (or other way to distinguish). Why not, though this could probably done in a separate commit as red_channel_remove_client() and red_channel_get_core_interface() both fall in that category. I'd also add methods which are only used by RedChannel subclasses to that header.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel