<html> <head> <base href="https://bugzilla.gnome.org/" /> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - [API] message: expose a details structure" href="https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=744093#c5">Comment # 5</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - [API] message: expose a details structure" href="https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=744093">bug 744093</a> from <a href="page.cgi?id=describeuser.html&login=mduponchelle1%40gmail.com" title="Mathieu Duponchelle <mduponchelle1@gmail.com>"> Mathieu Duponchelle</a> <pre>As discussed on IRC, there are concerns over the exact API that we should expose. On one hand, Sebastian said he wasn't comfortable with exposing implementation details such as GstStructure directly. On the other hand, if we hide away the GstStructure, then it means we have to expose a number of bindings-friendly methods, basically duplicating GstStructure's API. The other concern was that we might not want to make it generic, and only allow setting and getting details on error messages. My personal opinion is that we already expose the GstStructure of the message, so exposing details as a GstStructure would be consistent with this. Regarding genericity, as thiago said we can start with only error messages, then if need be make the API generic. I think we all agree that this would be a valuable addition, and it kind of blocks my work to let souphttpsrc pass more information about failure codes around, it would be great if we could go ahead and decide on something, implementation itself shouldn't be much work.</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the QA Contact for the bug.</li> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>