[Bug 29973] TpClientChannelFactory interface and TpDefaultChannelFactory

[bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org]

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=29973

--- Comment #14 from Simon McVittie <simon.mcvittie at collabora.co.uk> 2010-10-06 08:42:44 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Ok, so my remaning questions at this stage are:
> 
> Should I go for B ( tp_client_channel_factory_prepare_channel_async) or D (
> tp_client_channel_factory_get_desired_features ()).

Re-reading this bug, I think my intention with (D) was probably that users of
the factory (TpBaseClient, etc.) would asynchronously prepare the indicated
features before telling anyone about the channel. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

(B) is slightly more API, and makes TpBaseClient's current feature handling
entirely redundant (TpBaseClient would end up having to do two async calls per
object, one on the factory and one on the object, until we break API) but it's
more flexible if we want the possibility of doing async actions that aren't
actually preparing features.

You don't necessarily need to implement either of those to have a useful
object, I don't think...

> Are we happy with TpBasicChannelFactory and TpAutomaticChannelFactory as names?
> Should we rename TpBasicChannelFactory to TpBasicObjectFactory?

I'd be happy with TpBasicProxyFactory, and either TpAutomaticChannelFactory or
TpAutomaticProxyFactory depending which direction you think you'll go with it.

> Should TpBaseClient default to TpBasicChannelFactory or
> TpAutomaticChannelFactory ?

TpAutomaticChannelFactory, I think.

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