[Bug 21097] proxy subclasses should support optional features

[bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org]

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21097

--- Comment #7 from Guillaume Desmottes <guillaume.desmottes at collabora.co.uk> 2010-04-06 08:28:11 PDT ---
+gboolean _tp_proxy_is_preparing (gpointer self, GQuark feature);
+void _tp_proxy_set_feature_prepared (TpProxy *self, GQuark feature,
+    gboolean succeeded);

+static void tp_proxy_poll_features (TpProxy *self, const GError *error);

Should be one line per arg.

+    FEATURE_STATE_INVALID = GPOINTER_TO_INT (NULL),
Any reason to not use "= 0" ?

Is it sane to allow to call tp_proxy_prepare_async with a NULL callback?

Shouldn't we have TP_CHANNEL_FEATURE_GROUP rather than including it with CORE?

tp_channel_is_ready's doc:
+ * This is a less general form of tp_proxy_is_prepared(), which should be
+ * used in new code.
should NOT be used. Or maybe I miss-parsed this comment?
Same comment for TpChannel:channel-ready

I guess it's ok to call tp_cli_connection_call_connect on a not prepared
TpConnection right?

Shouldn't we deprecate old API?

Probably a bit out of scope for this branch, but as an API user I have to say
that I'd really love to have a way to ask "prepare this object and the objects
it's owning as well".
For example "prepare the account manager and the accounts as well". Maybe we
could have object specific API for that? Or having a
TP_ACCOUNT_MANAGER_FEATURE_CHANNEL_CORE ? In that case we won't be able to ask
for channels specific features.

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