[libvirt] [PATCH 1/2] Introduce virDomainYesNo enum type
Daniel P. Berrange
berrange at redhat.com
Tue Jul 15 08:22:38 UTC 2014
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 10:58:27AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 07/14/2014 10:40 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>
> >>>> }
> >>>> - def->os.bios.useserial = VIR_DOMAIN_BIOS_USESERIAL_YES;
> >>>> + def->os.bios.useserial = VIR_DOMAIN_YES_NO_ENABLED;
> >>>> } else {
> >>>> - def->os.bios.useserial = VIR_DOMAIN_BIOS_USESERIAL_NO;
> >>>> + def->os.bios.useserial = VIR_DOMAIN_YES_NO_DISABLED;
> >>>> }
>
> >>>> if (def->data.spice.filetransfer)
> >>>> virBufferAsprintf(buf, "<filetransfer enable='%s'/>\n",
> >>>> - virDomainGraphicsSpiceAgentFileTransferTypeToString(def->data.spice.filetransfer));
> >>>> + virDomainYesNoTypeToString(def->data.spice.filetransfer));
> >>>> }
> >>>
> >>> I'm not really a fan of this cleanup, as IMHO the result is less clear &
> >>> harder to follow than the original code.
> >>
> >> How so? The original code was very repetitive, with multiple enums (all
> >> with long names) copying the same few enum elements. We're not painting
> >> ourselves into a corner - if any of the replaced enums ever grows a
> >> third value (such as "on", "hybrid", "off"), then we just break that one
> >> enum back into a named list rather than using the generic on/off enum.
> >> I'm actually in favor of this cleanup.
> >
> > Specifically a enum constant name like YES_NO_DISABLED is just awful IMHO
> > compared to the original desriptive name.
>
> Is it just a matter of coming up with a better name? Maybe:
>
> VIR_TRISTATE_ABSENT = 0,
> VIR_TRISTATE_NO,
> VIR_TRISTATE_YES,
Yes, that would be much nicer
Regards,
Daniel
--
|: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|
More information about the libvir-list
mailing list