|
From: | Anthony Liguori |
Subject: | Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 04/28] qom: add the base Object class (v2) |
Date: | Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:37:56 -0600 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20110922 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.15 |
On 01/25/2012 03:30 PM, Andreas Färber wrote:
Am 24.01.2012 20:32, schrieb Anthony Liguori:This class provides the main building block for QEMU Object Model and is extensively documented in the header file. It is largely inspired by GObject. Signed-off-by: Anthony Liguori<address@hidden> --- v1 -> v2 - remove printf() in type registration - fix typo in comment (Paolo) - make Interface private - move object into a new directory and move header into include/qemu/Some of us had expressed concerns over introducing include/. Any particular reason you're doing it still?
Because it's a great idea and I thought everyone loved it?Can you point me to the concerns raised, I'll go back and look. I didn't think it was contentious...
To summarize my rationale for it:1) It avoids all of the non-sense with conflicting system headers (because we -Iinclude and the headers live in include/qemu)
2) It establishes what are public functions for use in other parts of qemu vs. private headers (which we currently use based on ad-hoc naming schemes like block_int.h).
3) I think the kernel serves as an existence proof that this method to manage headers works really well in practice.
Regards, Anthony Liguori
Andreas
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |