On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 11:58:07AM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 08/17/2018 11:48 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 09:33:33AM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: > >> While adding the object_initialize_child() function, Paolo suggested > >> to rename the similar object_new_with_props() function accordingly: > >> > >> http://marc.info/?i=e034610d-9a1d-a8a5-ee92-b2e3f0ba2...@redhat.com > >> > >> This way it is more obvious that this function creates a new object > >> as a child of another object. > > > > I'd expect 'object_new_with_child' to be the same as 'object_new', > > but with only 'parent' & 'id' args added, which isn't the case here. > > > > If we want the full & consistent design then we should have > > > > object_new(typename) > > object_new_with_child(typename, parent, id) > > object_new_props(typename, ...) > > object_new_propv(typename, va_arg props) > > object_new_with_child_props(typename, parent, id, ...) > > object_new_with_child_propv(typename, parent, id, va_arg props) > > "new_with_child" sounds wrong, too, since the parent is not created > here, but the child. Anyway, I guess the naming of these functions is > too much subject to bikeshedding, so never mind, let's keep it as it > currently is.
True, 'new_with_parent' is a better choice in retrospect :-) Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|