"Kővágó Zoltán" <dirty.ice...@gmail.com> writes: > 2015-06-17 10:41 keltezéssel, Gerd Hoffmann írta: >> On Mi, 2015-06-17 at 09:50 +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: >>> Copying László because his fingerprints are on OptsVisitor. >>> >>> "Kővágó, Zoltán" <dirty.ice...@gmail.com> writes: >>> >>>> The current OptsVisitor flattens the whole structure, if there are >>>> same named >>>> fields under different paths (like `in' and `out' in `Audiodev'), >>>> the current >>>> visitor can't cope with them (for example setting >>>> frequency=44100' will set the >>>> in's frequency to 44100 and leave out's frequency unspecified). >>>> >>>> This patch fixes it, by the following changes: >>>> 1) Specifying just the field name will apply to all fields that has the >>>> specified name (this means it would set both in's and out's frequency >>>> to >>>> 44100 in the above example). >>>> 2) Optionally user can specify the path in the hierarchy. Names >>>> are separated by >>>> a dot (e.g. `in.frequency', `foo.bar.something', etc). The user need >>>> not >>>> specify the whole path, only the last few components >>>> (i.e. `bar.something' is >>>> equivalent to `foo.bar.something' if only `foo' has a `bar' >>>> field). This way >>>> 1) is just a special case of this when only the last component >>>> is specified. >>>> 3) In case of an ambiguity (e.g >>>> frequency=44100,in.frequency=8000') the longest >>>> matching (the most specific) path wins (so in this example, >>>> in's frequency >>>> would become 8000, because `in.frequency' is more specific >>>> that `frequency', >>>> and out's frequency would become 44100, because only >>>> frequency' matches it). >>> >>> Can you explain why the complexity is needed, i.e. why we can't just >>> require full paths always? >> >> Keeping the short names is required for -netdev backward compatibility. >> >> Restricting to short or full (i.e. something= or foo.bar.something=, but >> disallow bar.something=) should not be a problem. I'm not sure this >> simplifies things much though. We have to build the full path anyway, >> and I think bar.something= is just a convenient thing we get almost for >> free ... > > With the current implementation you can specify (see my previous > patch) in.try-poll=off in case of alsa. If we would need full paths, > it would look like opts.data.in.try-poll=off, which is probably not > something we want.
I agree opts.data.in.try-poll would be an ugly user interface. But instead of hiding opts.data. with a convenience feature, I'd like us to investigate avoiding it altogether.
