[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

[Libosinfo] osinfo_entity param vs gobject property

I'm a bit confused about the suggested way to extend bits of the
libosinfo API. Here's my current understanding:

We have osinfo_entity*param* functions. This is used internally to store
basically all XML string field data. To get a string field the API user
can do:

osinfo_entity_get_param_value(OSINFO_ENTITY(foo), KEY)

KEY will be a public C macro pointing to a string. A few examples:

#define OSINFO_PRODUCT_PROP_EOL_DATE     "eol-date"
#define OSINFO_TREE_PROP_TREEINFO_FAMILY  "treeinfo-family"
#define OSINFO_OS_PROP_FAMILY              "family"

These macros are also used for passing to filter add_constraint
functions. This param data is what the filter APIs will actually filter on.

We also have gobject properties. This is all the internal PROP_FOO
macros, GParamSpec usage. All properties seem to just map to an entity
param value internally, so it's just an alternate access method. Many
entity params are not exposed as properties, like eol-date and family above.

We also have accessor functions. These are public API that return the
entity param values, possibly with some tweaks. eol-date above has
osinfo_product_get_eol_date_string which converts the string to a glib
date, treeinfo-family has osinfo_tree_get_treeinfo_family, but 'family'
doesn't have one.

So, when adding a new osinfo entity param, my questions are:

- What's the criteria for adding a gobject property to match?
- What's the criteria for adding an accessor function?
- What's the benefit of using osinfo_entity params instead of the
gobject property system which seems much more flexible and well
established? (besides the fact that I assume we are stuck with this for
back compat reasons)

- Cole

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]