Hi On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 12:16 PM, Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi > > On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 12:09 PM, Christophe Fergeau > <cfergeau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 10:46:35AM +0200, Christophe Fergeau wrote: >>> On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 10:43:20AM +0200, Christophe Fergeau wrote: >>> > On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 10:23:01AM +0300, Snir Sheriber wrote: >>> > Yes, indeed, this is similar to what you were doing in earlier >>> > iterations. >>> > >>> > > I personally really like the current flow of the request for handle >>> > > using the signal and getting it as a response, avoiding of setting >>> > > and getting an handle from different components. >>> > >>> > Using signals as some generic way of calling a getter on some unknown >>> > class is rather unusual, and feels like something you should not really >>> > be using signals for. >>> >>> Just realized, this change is most likely an ABI break: >> >> (I promise I'll stop replying to myself :d). Not sure we are supporting >> inheritance from SpiceDisplayChannel, nor that it makes sense, so maybe >> not a big problem. >> > > You could in theory, but it's very unlikely someone did. > > But I question the "streaming-mode" signal. Who cares about it? > Shouldn't it be a property instead (with the associated notify::)? > > I would remove it unless there is a real use case. My bad, I understand the reason now, this is actually used as a callback to get the display window handle. -- Marc-André Lureau _______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel