On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 07:31:13PM +0400, Marc-André Lureau wrote: > Hi > > On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 7:10 PM Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> > wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 02:16:55PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: > > > &error_abort has been a clear win for us. &error_fatal too, when used > > > judiciously. Marc-André tried to get both into GLib, unsuccessfully[2]. > > > > ...snip... > > > > > [2] https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/glib/-/issues/2288 > > > > This doesn't actually suggest adding error_abort/fatal to GLib. Rather > > it adds a general callback hook to GLib. Biggest complaints there > > are around the callback concept and difficulty of safely using it, > > which I can't disagree with. > > > > I wonder if we would have more luck if we explicitly proposed the > > error_abort/fatal concept to GLib instead. At least that would not > > hit any of the complaints raised about the callback. > > > > > Without callbacks, it will be difficult to report errors back to the > monitor, or prettify it the way we want (since we would be using extended > GErrors for hints etc) > > But we could have a more specific callback for that perhaps? > > You are welcome to propose something else :)
I was thinking g_set_error would use g_warning/g_error to report it, and thus involve the g_log_default_handler callback, which we could provide to feed back into the monitor. 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 :|