Il ven 30 ott 2020, 21:03 Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> ha scritto:
> > OBJECT_CLASS_PROPERTY_ADD_STR(oc, MachineState, kernel_filename,
> > "kernel", prop_allow_set_always);
>
> I like the idea of having an interface like this, but I would
> like to avoid having to write even more boilerplate for each
> property type to make this work.
>
> What would you think of:
> OBJECT_CLASS_PROPERTY_ADD(oc,
> PROP_STRING("kernel", MachineState, kernel_filename),
> prop_allow_set_always);
>
> Then we could make the same PROP_STRING macro usable both as
> object_class_property_add_static() argument and as initializer
> for existing static Property arrays.
>
The name should be an argument to OBJECT_CLASS_PROPERTY_ADD though (which
could be a function and not macro; perhaps
object_class_property_add_field?). PROP_STRING would be
DEFINE_PROP_STRING(NULL, etc.) and would not be entirely reusable in
Property arrays.
But even with that snag I agree with your less-boilerplate argument against
my proposal.
Since most if not all device properties would have to specify the same
allow-set function, we would end up defining more macros
DEVICE_CLASS_PROPERTY_ADD_STR, and so on. If the Property isbpassed a
struct, instead, we can define just one wrapper
device_class_property_add_field.
So what about:
1) add new constructors without the DEFINE prefix and without the name
argument
2) add object_class_property_add_field
And later:
3) add device_class_property_add_field and remove dc->props
4) remove the name field from Property.
Paolo
> --
> Eduardo
>
>
