[Bug 29190] Protocol objects don't define a serialization for all their properties

[bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org]

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=29190

--- Comment #2 from Simon McVittie <simon.mcvittie at collabora.co.uk> 2010-07-22 07:49:06 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Review of 9a71e0:
> 
> +RequestableChannelClasses=text
> 
> Shouldn't that be "RequestableChannelClasses=text;", since it's a string list?

Well spotted; there was also a pre-existing instance of the same error. Fixed
in the updated branch.

> Also, AFAICT, there are no names associated with the channel classes, so the
> section names must be autogenerated. Of course, the names aren't actually used
> for anything except serialization here, but it'd be helpful if the spec could
> give guidance on how to generate them.

I've explicitly said that they're not significant, and given one example of a
mnemonic name, and one example of sequential names. Is that OK from your point
of view?

> We could e.g. use the channel type suffix and (a representation of) target
> handle type, to make the names somewhat human-readable, and append a counter to
> each name to ensure uniqueness. This is what I've implemented in gabble branch
> implementing Protocol support.

That sounds reasonable, but is an implementation detail of Gabble. I must admit
that I was mostly assuming .manager files would be hand-written (the
auto-generation that Gabble does prevents cross-compilation, which is a
long-standing bug).

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