Hi Martin, On Wed, 2014-10-29 at 01:10 +0000, Martin Ling wrote: > If we're going to add such a facility to the API then we should do it > properly: > > - implement it in the C API, not just in the bindings, and > - allow for arbitrary data (e.g. a void *), so that the client can > attach whatever data is needed, not just the string required in this > current use case. > > I would question though whether this is the right approach. There are > other ways for clients to accomplish the same thing, e.g. keeping a > map/hash structure relating devices to client data, or using wrapper > objects. I know Joel favoured the latter idea for PulseView, and if > things are going to go in that direction then that would remove the > need for this.
Thanks for your feedback. While I'm not quite sure what use cases there are for attaching client data to devices aside from a display name, I'll take your word for it. @Joel: What's your preferred approach? If I'm to continue work on this then I'd rather make something that you'll accept, too. -Soeren ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ sigrok-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sigrok-devel
