Hey Marc-André, On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 11:53 AM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau@xxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: >> >> ACK to the patch apart from these cosmetic issues. There are still >> dozens of calls to g_signal_connect in the codebase after this patch, >> why are these special? > > > There was already a mix of both. No particular reason except that > virt_viewer_signal_connect_object() is easier to deal with when handler > callback is a object. I was tracking memory issues with Spice, I didn't see > the need to replace it elsewhere. I see that there was already a mix of both. But, not for this patch (neither for now), would be really good if we can standardize in having just virt_viewer_signal_connect_object() instead of the g_signal_connect(). It would help that newcomers in the project just start adding more calls g_signal_connect() when the other one is easier to deal with. > > > -- > Marc-André Lureau > > _______________________________________________ > virt-tools-list mailing list > virt-tools-list@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/virt-tools-list Best Regards, -- Fabiano Fidêncio _______________________________________________ virt-tools-list mailing list virt-tools-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/virt-tools-list
