PropertiesChanged signal, take 2

[Christian Dywan]

Am Fri, 14 May 2010 10:51:41 +0300
schrieb Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.dentz at gmail.com>:

> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Lennart Poettering
> <mzqohf at 0pointer.de> wrote:
> > On Thu, 13.05.10 10:34, David Zeuthen (zeuthen at gmail.com) wrote:
> >
> >> Hi again,
> >>
> >> I talked to Lennart and we agreed the best way to solve this
> >> problem is by adding an extra parameter to convey the name of the
> >> property that changed (but not it's value). The attached patch
> >> does this and I'm planning to commit it shortly.
> >
> > Yepp! I like it! Thanks for putting this together...
> >
> 
> You guys got be kidding, a list of properties names, duplicate
> property string names in the message where the initial argument was to
> reuse the message as much as possible to reduce overhead, the more
> this evolve the more I think PropertyChanged makes a lot more sense,
> it is far more simple.
> 
> Please do not over-engineer.

I wonder why there is a need to duplicate the property names in the
first place. I read the arguments about avoiding costly to computed
values which made a lot of sense, but I didn't catch up on the
conclusion. I would expect an array for the value which can be empty so
that you easily see "aha, no value, gotta get that myself" (maybe type
anyone?).


-- 
ciao,
    Christian