[libvirt] [RFC] making (newly public) EventImpl interface moreconsistent

Daniel P. Berrange berrange at redhat.com
Fri Nov 14 14:11:25 UTC 2008

On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 07:36:27AM -0500, Ben Guthro wrote:
> I'll answer for Dave, while I'm looking at this.
> As far as I know, Dave is of the opinion that we are just "getting lucky" 
> using the APIs as we are, and remains convinced that his suggested change 
> is necessary here.
> He (and I) remain worried that release of the EventImpl API without this 
> API change could get us into trouble in the future, as we would have to 
> support the released API that has different semantics than DBus, which 
> we were supposed to be modeled closely to.
> You had sounded convinced it was not necessary the last we heard though...
> and ultimatley we don't have checkin permissions...so we'll go with
> whatever you guys decide.

Basically, there is no downside to implementing your suggestion of allowing
the same FD to be registered, and a clear potential downside to our current
impl. So I'll re-write the Add/RemoveHandle API as you suggested to eliminate
the risk

|: Red Hat, Engineering, London   -o-   http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org  -o-  http://virt-manager.org  -o-  http://ovirt.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org       -o-         http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: GnuPG: 7D3B9505  -o-  F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|

More information about the libvir-list mailing list