[Spice-devel] SPICE logging facilities

[Jonathon Jongsma]

On Tue, 2018-07-03 at 17:10 +0200, Christophe de Dinechin wrote:
> There is a lot of debate, distributed across a large number of
> patches, regarding similar SPICE and glib facilities. For a number of
> things, there are two sets of parallel APIs with slightly different
> behaviour. This is undesirable, as it introduces confusion.
> 
> Pros: this lets us customize the behavior for SPICE
> 
> Cons: the SPICE macros are less documented, and not obvious to tell
> how they differ from the glib counterpart.
> 
> 
> As I wrote in a response to a patch comment, I personally value
> consistency relatively high, so if a file currently uses
> spice_return_if_fail, that’s what I will use in that file. While I
> may agree that using g_return_if_fail in general could be preferable
> to spice_return_if_fail, I would like
> 
> a) to avoid having repeated and unproductive comments about “why not
> use the glib version” for every patch that touches one of these
> macros.
> 
> b) to have a clearer understanding of what the benefits of the SPICE
> and glib variants are (I somewhat understand the difference, my
> question is more about whether there is real value add to the SPICE
> variant or not).
> 
> 
> I had started explaining my preferences here, but I realize it’s
> probably better to gather everyone’s opinion first. Please share your
> preference, e.g. should we switch to glib wholesale, piecemeal, not
> at all, on a per-macro basis, etc, and the rationale behind your
> preference. Meanwhile, I’ll do some additional experiments to
> solidify or change my own preference.
> 

Personally I think we should switch to glib since I don't really see
any need to customize behavior for SPICE. I haven't put much thought
into *how* the transition should be done, but I think perhaps it would
be better to do it wholesale.

Jonathon