2005/9/27, Murray Cumming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > 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. > > This would normally be achieved with properties. > > If you absolutely can't do it (and I'm unlikely to find time) then an > extra gda_row_construct*(GdaRow*, theparameters) function (called from > gda_row_new*()) is an ugly workaround for now. We could then also call > that construct function after calling g_object_new(), instead of > copy/pasting all of the code (which we can't always do because it accesses > private API).
I'll add properties then: - "model" for the GdaDataModel (G_PARAM_READABLE|G_PARAM_WRITABLE) - "values" to set the initial values (G_PARAM_CONSTRUCT_ONLY) - "nb_values" to set the number of columns in the row (G_PARAM_CONSTRUCT_ONLY) > > >> 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. > > You can do API deprecations and additions after the 2.0 release, but it > would be madness to change API after a 2.0 release. > I meant in the new dev branch, not in the 2.0 branch. _______________________________________________ gnome-db-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-db-list
