On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 10:59:44AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 11:58:07AM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
> > On 08/17/2018 11:48 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 09:33:33AM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
> > >> While adding the object_initialize_child() function, Paolo suggested
> > >> to rename the similar object_new_with_props() function accordingly:
> > >>
> > >> http://marc.info/?i=e034610d-9a1d-a8a5-ee92-b2e3f0ba2...@redhat.com
> > >>
> > >> This way it is more obvious that this function creates a new object
> > >> as a child of another object.
> > >
> > > I'd expect 'object_new_with_child' to be the same as 'object_new',
> > > but with only 'parent' & 'id' args added, which isn't the case here.
> > >
> > > If we want the full & consistent design then we should have
> > >
> > > object_new(typename)
> > > object_new_with_child(typename, parent, id)
> > > object_new_props(typename, ...)
> > > object_new_propv(typename, va_arg props)
> > > object_new_with_child_props(typename, parent, id, ...)
> > > object_new_with_child_propv(typename, parent, id, va_arg props)
> >
> > "new_with_child" sounds wrong, too, since the parent is not created
> > here, but the child. Anyway, I guess the naming of these functions is
> > too much subject to bikeshedding, so never mind, let's keep it as it
> > currently is.
>
> True, 'new_with_parent' is a better choice in retrospect :-)
Or indeed 'object_new_child' and 'object_new_child_prop{s,v}' approx as
you had suggested
Regards,
Daniel
--
|: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
