[libvirt] [libvirt-glib] Correct namespace prefix for GVirConfig symbols

Christophe Fergeau cfergeau at redhat.com
Thu Dec 22 17:55:53 UTC 2011

On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 07:33:22PM +0200, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
>   The patch improves the situation as it makes the whole API very
> consistent w.r.t what exactly is the namespace here.

Imo the namespace really is GVir::Config, not a GVirConfig namespace
totally separate from the GVir namespace, so it does not make the whole API
"very consistent", it just changes things.

> I also
> agree that nested namespaces will be better. If we decide/manage to go
> towards nested namespaces, this patch actually helps in that regard as
> well since existing API is not consistent/correct for that purpose
> either.

It helps *but breaks every library user*. Which is why you have to
carefully weight the pros and cons. It makes things slightly nicer,
slightly more consistent but *it breaks every user*. This is what makes it
special and worth more considerations than a quick ack while everyone is on

> > I'm fine if it goes in too. Let's see what danpb thinks
> > about it :)
>   I think his intention is pretty clear from the bindings but I can wait.

Yeah, under the assumption that what is in the bindings is right...

Really, let's just wait until the holidays are over, as far as I'm
concerned I wouldn't like having such a patch go in before I get a chance
to see it even if I agree with it.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/attachments/20111222/0eab1970/attachment-0001.sig>

More information about the libvir-list mailing list