2005/9/27, Murray Cumming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Mon, 2005-09-26 at 09:36 +0200, Vivien Malerba wrote: > > > > -> if a user wants to update a complete row, create a new GdaRow > > > > object or copy an existing one, call gda_data_model_update_row() and > > > > then g_object_unref (row) > > So, now I see that GdaRow has been changed to a GObject too. > > The const on the row parameter on > gda_data_model_update_row() and gda_data_model_remove_row() seems wrong, > because they can invalidate/delete the row, though that's not documented
You're right; I'll remove them. > for both. I'd also like the documentation for those functions to clearly > state how the row object might be obtained, in order to call these > functions. Yes, I'll update the documentation to make that point very clear. > > More importantly, gda_row_new() and gda_row_new_from_list should do > nothing more than call g_object_new(), because language bindings can not > all call the specific _new functions. It's almost the case, but as the gda_row__new*() functions have parameters like the number of columns in the row or its values, there is a bit more code and that can't be avoided. > > These seem like useful changes that will simplify the API, and I'm > really grateful for your hard work on it. However, API freeze seems a > bit far off at the moment. Yes. I tried to make the corrections (which I believe were required before the 2.0 release) and modifying the API as few as possible. I plan to do more after the 2.0 release. Rodrigo, do you think I should correct the few items Murray mantionned above before the 2.0 or should I wait after it? Vivien _______________________________________________ gnome-db-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-db-list
