[Bug 30430] Make wocky_implement_finish_* macros safer

[bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org]

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30430

--- Comment #7 from Simon McVittie <simon.mcvittie at collabora.co.uk> 2010-10-07 09:25:07 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> The goal here is to prepare for wocky_implement_finish_*() macro to get moved
> to GLib, but this won't happen until we flip the _is_valid() call with the
> propagate call.

If GLib upstream are basically saying "g_simple_async_report_error_in_idle is
never right" then I suppose we can do this... but which of the situations in
comment #4 is actually a problem?

Would there be anything wrong with having the version in Wocky be more
permissive than the version that eventually goes into GLib? If GLib is going to
grow a more permissive g_simple_async_result_is_valid(), then it can get away
with its version of implement_finish being in an order that relies on that.

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