Re: [SyncEvolution] Concurrent sync sessions update - Almost done
On Thu, 2012-03-08 at 18:58 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Patrick Ohly
<patrick.ohly(a)intel.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-03-08 at 17:18 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
> 6c9a05a9db72f001d9834d2d24ac589f48fc5798
>
> dbus-server: Run sync sessions in separate processes
>
> ...
>
> Sessions are separated into SessionResource and Session classes. A
> SessionResource instance resides in the server process and serves as a
> proxy to the Session instance which is in the child process.
>
> This naming seems rather arbitrary to me. Why call it "Resource" and not
> something like "Stub" or "Proxy"?
>
Yeah, I'm not 100% happy with the naming either. They are subclasses
of Resource so it was the obvious choice. Renaming is not a problem
but I'd rather get finished with the more substantive changes needed
to complete this before doing that.
Everything that minimizes the number of changes that I need to look at
helps.
> Or, perhaps even better, don't rename it at all on the
server side. Then
> a whole range of diffs goes away:
>
It's just that the Session is actually not in the Server anymore so it
seems a tad misleading to call it that in the Server.
It's still the implementation of the D-Bus Session API in the server,
isn't it?
So for the sake of minimizing code churn, Session (in the server) and
SessionImpl (in the client) might work.
--
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly
The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.