Hi, On Tue, 2013-02-05 at 17:14 +0900, Tristan Van Berkom wrote: > Reduce code in ESourceExtension implementations > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I like this idea, even the implementation would be a bit tricky, as I would keep those set/get/dup functions in the extension's public API. It's part of the nice thing on it, right? I added couple new properties to source extensions already and it's nothing but a copy&paste boring monkey work. While it'll still be a copy&paste job, its extent would be significantly limited with some base struct support for this purpose. Similarly with the mentioned property mutex, which is now part of each descendant which requires it, and might be "doubled" in subdescendants. > CrackPot crazy idea of code sharing > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This one I won't support. Thinking of it the libraries are linked dynamically, thus there is (almost?) none binary duplication. I'd rather like to see addressbook-specific source extensions residing in addressbook/libebook, calendar-specific source extensions residing in calendar/libecal, and those common in libedataserver (as they all are now). Backend specific extensions are backend specific. A little bit of file placement cleanup. Bye, Milan _______________________________________________ evolution-hackers mailing list evolution-hackers@gnome.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers