Re: [PATCH 0/9] Fixing DBus error system in BlueZ

["Gustavo F. Padovan" <padovan@profusion.mobi>]

Hi Johan,

* Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@gmail.com> [2010-11-08 14:33:30 +0200]:

> Hi Gustavo,
> 
> On Mon, Nov 08, 2010, Gustavo F. Padovan wrote:
> > Here are some patches that try to fix the mess of reporting error to
> > DBus inside BlueZ. It follows the oFono and ConnMan error system.
> > 
> > The goal is to get ride of any directly call to g_dbus_create_error()
> > inside bluez code, changing that to __btd_error_*. This patch set
> > doesn't fix all of them yet, but is a very good start. Please review.
> > 
> > 
> > Gustavo F. Padovan (9):
> >   Create __btd_error_invalid_args()
> >   Add __btd_error_already_exists()
> >   Add __btd_error_not_supported()
> >   Add __btd_error_not_connected()
> >   Add __btd_error_in_progress()
> >   Add __btd_error_not_available()
> >   Add __btd_error_busy()
> >   Add __btd_error_does_not_exist()
> >   Add __btd_error_not_authorized()
> 
> The patches seem fine to me, but before pushing upstream I'd like to
> understand the reason for prefixing these with  with __btd instead of
> btd. What's the criteria used to decide what to use and when and why is
> __btd the correct choice for these new functions? My first guess would
> have been that __btd is for things only accessible by the core-daemon
> whereas btd is for functions exported to plugins, but that doesn't seem
> to be the case with your patches since many of these __btd functions get
> called from plugins.

I just followed oFono and ConnMan on this. That is the reason and I
didn't asked myself why have a __ in this case.. But I see your point.
Do you think that change that to btd_error_* will fit better inside
BlueZ? I can change that then.

-- 
Gustavo F. Padovan
ProFUSION embedded systems - http://profusion.mobi