On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 07:10:57AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: > Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> writes: > > > I'd also note that the use of "parent" in the code is also > > ambiguous. It can mean: > > > > * QOM parent type, i.e. TypeInfo.parent. Related fields: > > * parent_class members of class structs > > * parent_obj members of object structs > > I hate the use of "parent" and "child" for a super- / subtype relation. > > Correcting the terminology there would be short term pain for long term > gain. Worthwhile?
I don't know. It looks like the terminology came from GObject. > > > * QOM composition tree parent object, i.e. Object::parent > > * qdev device parent bus, i.e. DeviceState::parent_bus > > * parent device of of qdev bus, i.e. BusState::parent > > These are tree relations. Use of "parent" and "child" is perfectly > fine. The terms are fine but still ambiguous, as devices belong to two separate trees at the same time (the QOM composition tree, and the qdev tree). I never understood why we have two separate independent object trees. -- Eduardo
