[Bug 29973] TpClientChannelFactory interface and TpDefaultChannelFactory

bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org
Fri Sep 3 15:02:39 CEST 2010


https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=29973

--- Comment #8 from Simon McVittie <simon.mcvittie at collabora.co.uk> 2010-09-03 06:02:39 PDT ---
> +GType
> +tp_client_channel_factory_get_type (void)

G_DEFINE_INTERFACE; also, please explicitly include GObject as an interface
prerequisite.

TpBasicChannelFactory should either move to a -internal.h header and have all
its methods be non-ABI (underscore-prefixed), or be documented. I think it's
reasonable for it to be public, to be honest - that makes it easier to explain
what the default behaviour is, if it's the default.

(In reply to comment #7)
> Also, should be we have a tp_base_client_set_channel_factory() (to be called
> before calling _register())

Yes, I think so.

(In reply to comment #5)
> Right. Should we have a general interface to create channel and connection
> (TpClientFactory?) or define a TpClientConnectionFactory later? An object can
> easily implement both interfaces if needed.

My vote would be one GInterface per thing being manufactured. We could consider
renaming TpBasicChannelFactory to TpBasicObjectFactory and making it
manufacture all of them, though :-)

(Adding more GInterfaces to TpBasicObjectFactory is not an ABI break,
obviously)

> Oth, if interfaces defaults to tp_channel_new_from_properties() and
> tp_connection_new() we could have a single interface and it won't be an issue
> if only one head is actually implemented by the objecT.

I don't feel entirely happy about this, but I can't quite articulate why...
let's both think about it some more.

> I like this idea. TpBasicChannelFactory and TpDefaultChannelFactory sounds good
> to me.

... unless we (might) default to the basic/minimal version anywhere, in which
case replace Default with Automatic or something :-P

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.



More information about the telepathy-bugs mailing list