On 16/09/16 02:51, Christopher James Halse Rogers wrote: > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Daniel van Vugt > <daniel.van.v...@canonical.com> wrote: >> So actually... I now think it's OK providing the base class is named >> *Observer. And only some implementations would be called *Report. > > I would also be happy with this; various components take an Observer > (which provides a register-interested-party API), and Reports register > themselves as interested parties.
1. the user of the "Report" interface is the core code - which is simply reporting something. The code reads "report->xxx()" which is clear. 2. we've had this name for years, without considering it a problem. 3. Some implementations of "Report" log, some don't - which is the behaviour that was originally intended (and what we all want). 4. I *think* the current issue is simply that we want to add support for multiple reports/observers so that code using Mir can get notifications without disabling the supplied logging/lttng options. We have existing generic "observer" code that can be used to composite reports. In short, I agree that "Reports" are taking the "Observer" role from the pattern language, but I think the more specific name is good here and I don't follow why folks want the pain of a rename. With regard to Chris's MP - I don't believe we want both a "Report" and an "Observer" both doing the same job as a solution to /4/.
-- Mir-devel mailing list Mir-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/mir-devel
