On Tue, 2018-07-03 at 17:10 +0200, Christophe de Dinechin wrote: > There is a lot of debate, distributed across a large number of > patches, regarding similar SPICE and glib facilities. For a number of > things, there are two sets of parallel APIs with slightly different > behaviour. This is undesirable, as it introduces confusion. > > Pros: this lets us customize the behavior for SPICE > > Cons: the SPICE macros are less documented, and not obvious to tell > how they differ from the glib counterpart. > > > As I wrote in a response to a patch comment, I personally value > consistency relatively high, so if a file currently uses > spice_return_if_fail, that’s what I will use in that file. While I > may agree that using g_return_if_fail in general could be preferable > to spice_return_if_fail, I would like > > a) to avoid having repeated and unproductive comments about “why not > use the glib version” for every patch that touches one of these > macros. > > b) to have a clearer understanding of what the benefits of the SPICE > and glib variants are (I somewhat understand the difference, my > question is more about whether there is real value add to the SPICE > variant or not). > > > I had started explaining my preferences here, but I realize it’s > probably better to gather everyone’s opinion first. Please share your > preference, e.g. should we switch to glib wholesale, piecemeal, not > at all, on a per-macro basis, etc, and the rationale behind your > preference. Meanwhile, I’ll do some additional experiments to > solidify or change my own preference. > Personally I think we should switch to glib since I don't really see any need to customize behavior for SPICE. I haven't put much thought into *how* the transition should be done, but I think perhaps it would be better to do it wholesale. Jonathon _______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel