[libvirt] (Dropping) OOM Handling in libvirt

[Markus Armbruster]

Andrea Bolognani <abologna at redhat.com> writes:

> On Mon, 2019-05-13 at 13:19 +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 02:00:28PM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
>> > One possible complication is that we would not be able to use any
>> > of the GLib types in our public API... I think the way we should
>> > approach this is to consider the current public API as if it were
>> > yet another language binding, the language being plain C in this
>> > case, and make sure we have a very well defined boundary between
>> > them and everything else, basically treating them as a separate
>> > project that just so happens to live in the same repository and be
>> > developed in tandem. This should also make it easier for us to
>> > switch to a different programming language in the future, should
>> > we decide to.
>> 
>> I'm not sure why you say we can't use GLib types in our public API ?
>> 
>> I think we could use them, but I'd probably suggest we none the less
>> choose not to use them in public API, only internally :-)
>> 
>> But I'm anticipating we could replace virObject, with GObject, and as
>> such all the virXXXXXPtr types in our public API would become GObjects.
>> I think we'd likely keep them as opaque types though, despite the fact
>> that they'd be GObjects, to retain our freedom to change impl again
>> later if we wish.
>> 
>> I won't think we need to change use of 'long long' to 'gint64', etc
>> Not least because because GLib maintainers themselves are questioning
>> whether to just mandate stdint.h types.

Interesting.  Got a link?

>>                                         This is fairly minor though.
>
> I was mostly thinking about this latter example and other situations
> along those lines. For example, we'll definitely need to start using
> gchar* internally,

Are you sure about "definitely"?  gchar is merely a typedef name for
char...

>                    and since we don't want that implementation detail
> exposed in our plain C bindings,

Yup, letting GLib's typedef names for ordinary C types leak into your
public headers would be a mistake.

>                                  then we'll have to do at least some
> very lightweight conversion (casting) between that and char*. This is
> one of the examples where considering the existing API as a language
> binding would IMHO result in a maintainable structure.

[...]