About ProgressReport and msn-pecan
kstange at pidgin.im
Sun Jun 15 17:36:07 EDT 2008
Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 3:12 PM, Kevin Stange <kstange at pidgin.im> wrote:
>> Felipe Contreras wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 1:58 AM, Tim Ringenbach
>>> <tim.ringenbach at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> What's the end goal here? Just to speed up compiling and make the
>>>> graph shorter, if technically misleading? (By misleading I mean the
>>>> account module really does use the presence module even though it
>>>> wouldn't show on the graph anymore because the header isn't including
>>> No. The public and the private fields are two completely different things.
>>> Try to use "hash->size" with GHashTable; you can't. Why? Because you
>>> shouldn't need to know what is being used internally, actually ->size
>>> is not what you would want, you need "hash->nnodes", but you don't
>>> need to care, you just use g_hash_table_size.
>> We understand this sort of design, which is the end goal of gobjectification
>> and/or use of accessor functions.
> Now you still don't seem to understand that the whole point of the
> _private headers is to start the struct hiding *without* API/ABI
> breakage. Old stuff use foo.h (foo_private.h <- foo_public.h), new
> stuff use foo_public.h.
It's not a benefit that I think justifies making us have to have 3
header files for every .c file for the duration of 2.x.y series until we
get around to 3.0.0.
I want to ask you why it's such as rush that we change this for 2.0.0?
Why can't it wait?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 260 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the Devel