Am 29.09.2016 um 12:23 hat Andreas Färber geschrieben:
> Am 29.09.2016 um 12:21 schrieb Daniel P. Berrange:
> > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 12:12:32PM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:
> >> Am 29.09.2016 um 10:14 schrieb Daniel P. Berrange:
> >>> Practically all instances properties should become class
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 09:33:20AM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 09:14:16AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 10:16:41AM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> > > QOM has the concept of both "object class" properties and "object
> > > instance" properties.
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 12:16:48PM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 29.09.2016 um 02:16 schrieb David Gibson:
> > is there really any value to supporting the "class"
> > properties in addition to the "instance" properties?
>
> Yes, it makes enumerating available properties easier by not
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 12:23:41PM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 29.09.2016 um 12:21 schrieb Daniel P. Berrange:
> > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 12:12:32PM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:
> >> Am 29.09.2016 um 10:14 schrieb Daniel P. Berrange:
> >>> Practically all instances properties should become
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 09:14:16AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 10:16:41AM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> > QOM has the concept of both "object class" properties and "object
> > instance" properties.
> >
> > The accessor functions installed for the rarely-used class
Am 29.09.2016 um 12:21 schrieb Daniel P. Berrange:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 12:12:32PM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:
>> Am 29.09.2016 um 10:14 schrieb Daniel P. Berrange:
>>> Practically all instances properties should become class properties
>>> as its going to save wasting memory once most are
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 12:12:32PM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 29.09.2016 um 10:14 schrieb Daniel P. Berrange:
> > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 10:16:41AM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> >> QOM has the concept of both "object class" properties and "object
> >> instance" properties.
> >>
> >> The
Am 29.09.2016 um 02:16 schrieb David Gibson:
> is there really any value to supporting the "class"
> properties in addition to the "instance" properties?
Yes, it makes enumerating available properties easier by not requiring
to instantiate a new instance for printing, e.g., ",help" information.
Am 29.09.2016 um 10:14 schrieb Daniel P. Berrange:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 10:16:41AM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
>> QOM has the concept of both "object class" properties and "object
>> instance" properties.
>>
>> The accessor functions installed for the rarely-used class properties
>> still take
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 10:16:41AM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> QOM has the concept of both "object class" properties and "object
> instance" properties.
>
> The accessor functions installed for the rarely-used class properties
> still take an Object *, so the *value* of such properties is still
On 29/09/2016 02:16, David Gibson wrote:
> Alternatively, if we *don't* want to remove class properties, should
> we instead be trying to convert the many, many "instance" properties
> whose existence is actually per-class to be class properties?
Yes, this was the point of introducing them. :)
QOM has the concept of both "object class" properties and "object
instance" properties.
The accessor functions installed for the rarely-used class properties
still take an Object *, so the *value* of such properties is still
per-instance; it's just the *existence* (and type) of the property
that
12 matches
Mail list logo
