[Bug 27677] Add Observer.Recover support

[bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org]

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=27677

--- Comment #4 from Andre Moreira Magalhaes <andrunko at gmail.com> 2010-04-16 06:27:31 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> This is more or less what I had in mind, but:
> 
> * I don't like the method name recover() - it sounds like it ought to mean "try
> to recover [something] [from something] and return true on success" rather than
> just being an accessor. Could it be hasRecover() or willRecover() or something?
Updated. Changed to shouldRecover as agreed on IRC.

> * Could the old (filter) constructor be implemented as a call to the new
> (filter, bool) constructor? Do C++ constructors work like that?
> 
> AbstractClientObserver::AbstractClientObserver(... filter)
>     : AbstractClientObserver(filter, false)
> {}
> 
> AbstractClientObserver::AbstractClientObserver(... filter, bool recover)
>     : mPriv(new Private)
> {
>     mPriv->channelFilter = channelFilter;
>     mPriv->recover = recover;
> }
> 
> (If that doesn't work in C++, then never mind.)
Unfortunately that is not possible in C++, but I improved this and moved the
members initialization to a new Private class constructor.

> * It'd be nice to have a convention for noting "what we'll do when we break
> ABI" - perhaps a comment containing "ABI-break"? - and mark these two
> constructors as "// ABI-break: combine (filter, bool) and (filter) constructors
> into (filter, bool=false)", or something
I didn't change that but I agree that should have a convention here, let's
discuss this more and then we can do it later.

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