On Tue, 2017-04-18 at 12:24 +0200, Aleksander Morgado wrote: > On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 6:54 PM, Dan Williams <d...@redhat.com> > wrote: > > > I made the flow control setting a readable property in the Modem > > > object, and a RW property in the Bearer object. The property is > > > inherited by the bearer object when it is created, i.e. in > > > mm_broadband_bearer_new() we just read the property from the > > > modem > > > and we set it in the bearer creation. > > > > > > I thought of g_object_bind_property()-ing them whenever the > > > "modem" > > > object was set as property in the "bearer" object, but then > > > realized > > > that happens in "MMBaseBearer" level not in "MMBroadbandBearer", > > > so > > > decided not to complicate it more; especially since the property > > > won't change any more. > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > Looks OK to me, though if we're not exposing the flow control via > > the > > D-Bus API on the Modem object, should we just not bother making it > > a > > property there? It's not used anywhere yet... > > After moving the flow control setting to the bearer creation method I > needed a way to receive the actual setting value; and definitely > didn't want to modify the mm_broadband_bearer_new() parameters with a > new MMFlowControl one (as that method is used in lots of plugins as > well). So, at the end I did need a way to get information from the > modem object from within the bearer object, so instead of having a > mm_broadband_modem_get_connected_flow_control() method as in the > first > patch, I ended up with the read-only property... too convoluted > maybe?
mm_broadband_bearer_new() is only used in 9 places though (including the 2 hits in mm-broadband-bearer.c/h itself). Not too many for me to say we shouldn't bother changing it? Dan _______________________________________________ ModemManager-devel mailing list ModemManager-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/modemmanager-devel
