On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 11:54, Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> wrote: > > TYPE_ACPI_DEVICE_IF > > TYPE_ARM_LINUX_BOOT_IF > > TYPE_TEST_IF > > TYPE_TPM_IF > > > > TYPE_IDAU_INTERFACE > > TYPE_IPMI_INTERFACE > > TYPE_PNV_XSCOM_INTERFACE > > I'm not so bothered by these, though they are pointless unless > perhaps it is to avoid clash with a similarly named object > type
For the ones of these that I'm responsible for, I was partly following an existing example, but I find it useful as a user of the APIs that it's clear that I'm dealing with an interface and not an object. For instance if I see a PROP_LINK that wants a TYPE_IDAU_INTERFACE I know I need to implement an interface on some suitable object, whereas if it were a TYPE_IDAU I'd be expecting to need to create (or write a subclass of) a concrete object. So I'd prefer us to settle on a convention that does explicitly mark the interface-ness in the type name. thanks -- PMM
