[PATCH v2] broadband-bearer: once connected, set flow control settings

[Dan Williams]

On Tue, 2017-04-18 at 12:24 +0200, Aleksander Morgado wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 6:54 PM, Dan Williams <dcbw at redhat.com>
> wrote:
> > > I made the flow control setting a readable property in the Modem
> > > object, and a RW property in the Bearer object. The property is
> > > inherited by the bearer object when it is created, i.e. in
> > > mm_broadband_bearer_new() we just read the property from the
> > > modem
> > > and we set it in the bearer creation.
> > > 
> > > I thought of g_object_bind_property()-ing them whenever the
> > > "modem"
> > > object was set as property in the "bearer" object, but then
> > > realized
> > > that happens in "MMBaseBearer" level not in "MMBroadbandBearer",
> > > so
> > > decided not to complicate it more; especially since the property
> > > won't change any more.
> > > 
> > > What do you think?
> > 
> > Looks OK to me, though if we're not exposing the flow control via
> > the
> > D-Bus API on the Modem object, should we just not bother making it
> > a
> > property there?  It's not used anywhere yet...
> 
> After moving the flow control setting to the bearer creation method I
> needed a way to receive the actual setting value; and definitely
> didn't want to modify the mm_broadband_bearer_new() parameters with a
> new MMFlowControl one (as that method is used in lots of plugins as
> well). So, at the end I did need a way to get information from the
> modem object from within the bearer object, so instead of having a
> mm_broadband_modem_get_connected_flow_control() method as in the
> first
> patch, I ended up with the read-only property... too convoluted
> maybe?

mm_broadband_bearer_new() is only used in 9 places though (including
the 2 hits in mm-broadband-bearer.c/h itself).  Not too many for me to
say we shouldn't bother changing it?

Dan