Am 24.05.2012 16:08, schrieb Markus Armbruster: > Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> writes: > >> Am 24.05.2012 13:43, schrieb Markus Armbruster: >>> Beware: second patch is the product of voodoo-coding. >> >> Hm, I don't like the voodoo. ;) I would rather expose a proper C API >> like object_try_new(const char *, Error **) than opening up the TypeImpl >> internals to the public and hand-coding it everywhere. > > How does returning a TypeImpl * open up TypeImpl any more than > type_register() already does?
type_register[_static]() operates on TypeInfo, not TypeImpl. I consider TypeImpl an implementation detail of qom/object.c, but maybe I'm mistaken. >> similar error-catching scenario where I needed to check for class >> existence in some qdev_try_* function. > > If this is a really common pattern, and object_try_new() really saves > code, why not. > > Can't see why we need the Error **argument, though. What kinds of > different errors that do you envisage? Where "different" means "actual > callers care about the difference". Well, I thought of class-doesn't-exist vs. out-of-memory. It would just be to report different textual messages to the end user - as QMP error response or as stderr output elsewhere. I have better OOM handling somewhere down my TODO list, including a preallocated Error object. Main reason is avoiding code duplication though. Andreas -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg
