Hi, On Wed, Jul 04, 2018 at 12:29:15PM -0400, Frediano Ziglio wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 04, 2018 at 11:38:14AM -0400, Frediano Ziglio wrote: > > > Another question is however "Are we going to use g_critical > > > as g_critical?". It sounds a tricky question. Let say that > > > a new person starts to look at the code and knows GLib. He > > > see g_critical and think "well, this by default log a > > > critical warning and continue" but instead on Spice is > > > always fatal. > > > > Unless I am confused, g_critical() should have the usual > > default behaviour, and spice_critical() aborts, see > > test_spice_abort_level_g_warning and the following tests > > https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/spice/spice-common/blob/master/tests/test-logging.c#L62 > > > > Christophe > > But you suggested c3d to use g_critical instead of > spice_critical, isn't it confusing? Okay, took some time to understand why it is confusing to you. The problem is the behavior itself, you would like to keep the abort/assert, correct? > Forgot about telling what I think about logging and g_XXX vs > spice_XXX. > I agree we should use a single API to avoid confusion but > should be consistent, not introducing free regressions so > spice_critical -> g_error and > spice_return_if_fail/spice_return_val_if_fail/spice_assert -> > g_assert (making sure it's never disabled!). Sounds reasonable.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel