Re: [Telepathy] Announcing Telepathy 0.99.6
An update: TpQt is now compiling against 0.99.5 ! We immediately then changed the spec to 0.99.6 and have most things broken again. ___ telepathy mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/telepathy
Re: [Telepathy] Announcing Telepathy 0.99.6
On 20/01/14 17:35, David Edmundson wrote: > In TpQt we autogenerate structs from the spec then make nice wrappers > round things. If the autogenerated structs live in the same namespace as the "more OO" wrappers, you're going to get this problem. In telepathy-glib, we used various informal sub-namespaces: * TP_HASH_TYPE_*, TP_STRUCT_TYPE_*, TP_ARRAY_TYPE_* for GType names, where GObject convention would normally use TP_TYPE_* * TP_IFACE_*, TP_IFACE_QUARK_* for interface names * tp_cli_*, tp_svc_*, etc. for client- and service-side functions We do use "unadorned" types for enums and flags. I thought about this when planning Telepathy 1.0, and my conclusion was that not exposing enums and flags from the spec as "first class" API is just too painful - we'd end up wrapping them all in a handwritten type that's effectively identical. So I'd be inclined to say the spec effectively has stronger API guarantees for enums and flags than it does for everything else. > In a bodge commit I made to move forwards I patch the specification so > that the autogenerated structure is still called SimplePresence. Short-term: perhaps you could patch that special case into the code-generation tools instead? Long-term: as Xavier said, I would recommend moving the autogenerated struct/array types into another namespace, and aiming to have enough high-level API coverage to avoid them in "most" KDE-Telepathy code. S ___ telepathy mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/telepathy
Re: [Telepathy] Announcing Telepathy 0.99.6
That idea cross my mind too, then I thought about how much work it will be and tried to discount it. It probably will be the best thing to do long term though, it will mean we never have this problem in the future and has the benefit of making the documentation easier to read. David ___ telepathy mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/telepathy
Re: [Telepathy] Announcing Telepathy 0.99.6
I think the generated API should be in a different namespace. You could have TpDBus::Presence for the generated code and Tp::Presence for the hand written code. Le lundi 20 janvier 2014 à 18:35 +0100, David Edmundson a écrit : > One commit is going to make you weep. > > I have a problem with the rename of SimplePresence to Presence. > > In TpQt we autogenerate structs from the spec then make nice wrappers > round things. > We had a wrapper round theTp::SimplePresence struct in a hand written > class called Tp::Presence, which had methods and proper enums and > such. > > With the rename I have an automatically generated structure > Tp::Presence, which clashes with our wrapper which is also > Tp::Presence. I want to keep source comparability at least vaguely > similar especially for something so integral. > In a bodge commit I made to move forwards I patch the specification so > that the autogenerated structure is still called SimplePresence. > > There are a few options to resolve this, none of which seem particularly > ideal. > ___ > telepathy mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/telepathy ___ telepathy mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/telepathy
Re: [Telepathy] Announcing Telepathy 0.99.6
One commit is going to make you weep. I have a problem with the rename of SimplePresence to Presence. In TpQt we autogenerate structs from the spec then make nice wrappers round things. We had a wrapper round theTp::SimplePresence struct in a hand written class called Tp::Presence, which had methods and proper enums and such. With the rename I have an automatically generated structure Tp::Presence, which clashes with our wrapper which is also Tp::Presence. I want to keep source comparability at least vaguely similar especially for something so integral. In a bodge commit I made to move forwards I patch the specification so that the autogenerated structure is still called SimplePresence. There are a few options to resolve this, none of which seem particularly ideal. ___ telepathy mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/telepathy
Re: [Telepathy] Announcing Telepathy 0.99.6
On 20/01/14 15:43, David Edmundson wrote: > I started porting TpQt to "next' working towards 0.99.5. Great, thanks! I'll try to find some time to look through the commits and flag anything that I consider likely to become a problem in future. The next milestone I'm aiming for is to be able to install Telepathy 0.x and Telepathy 1.0 snapshots on the same machine, without them conflicting - at the moment Guillaume is looking into the Logger storage, which we hope will be the last thing needed there. S ___ telepathy mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/telepathy
Re: [Telepathy] Announcing Telepathy 0.99.6
I started porting TpQt to "next' working towards 0.99.5. Current code is here: https://github.com/davidedmundson/telepathy-qt/tree/next I went outside fd.o because I want to try and conscript other devs to help and because I want to do some heavy rebasing on this before merging. It doesn't compile yet, but it's getting continually closer. If anyone wants to help, let me know. David ___ telepathy mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/telepathy
