[Libosinfo] Fwd: [PATCHv4 06/11] Add OsinfoInstallConfig:config-params property

[Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)]

Hit 'reply' instead of 'reply-all'. :(

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) <zeeshanak at gnome.org>
Date: Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 4:47 PM
Subject: Re: [Libosinfo] [PATCHv4 06/11] Add
OsinfoInstallConfig:config-params property
To: Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau at redhat.com>


On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Christophe Fergeau
<cfergeau at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 10:53:34AM +0100, Christophe Fergeau wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 03:42:17AM +0200, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
>> > On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 3:13 AM, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)
>> > <zeeshanak at gnome.org> wrote:
>> > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Christophe Fergeau
>> > > <cfergeau at redhat.com> wrote:
>> > >> This property lists the parameters that can be set for a given
>> > >> OsinfoInstallConfig. This is not enforced, it's only there for
>> > >> informative purpose. This will also be used in later commits
>> > >> in order to automatically apply transformations on values
>> > >> for parameters which have an associated OsinfoDatamap.
>> > >
>> > > Since there is already a very similar property in OsinfoInstallScript,
>> > > I'm afraid this will cause confusion for app developers. Is there no
>> > > way we can achieve the same goals through the existing API?
>> >
>> > Later commits clarifies things quite a bit so take that comment as:
>> > Perhaps this should be internal API?
>>
>> I assume you are talking about osinfo_install_config_get_config_params
>> and osinfo_install_config_set_config_params as the GObject property can't
>> really be made private? I _think_ this API could be useful as a public API,
>> but I'm fine with making it private for now and exporting it when we see a
>> real need for it.
>
> Thinking a bit more about this, if we make these private then it's better
> to make osinfo_install_config_new_for_script public and to advocate using
> it instead of osinfo_install_config_new, otherwise it's pretty weird to
> have this config-params property which will always be NULL as far as
> the library user can see.

Or we don't expose config-params as property? We can just have the
getter/setter for now. Also, wasn't there a way to make properties
private?

--
Regards,

Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)
FSF member#5124


-- 
Regards,

Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)
FSF member#5124