Re: [lm-sensors] Misc API changes for libsensors4

[Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede@hhs.nl>]

Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> As libsensors4 won't be compatible with libsensors3 (thus the major
> version number change) it's the right time for small adjustments to the
> API, which we won't be allowed to do later. After reviewing the current
> API, I have the following proposals, and I would like to know if there
> are objections to me doing these changes.
> 
> * Drop support for reloading the configuration from sensors_init().
> Instead, the application will have to call sensors_exit() explicitly
> before calling sensors_init() again. Rationale: most applications don't
> offer any way to reload the configuration file, so better optimize for
> the initial load.
> 
> * Change the prototype of sensors_get_label() from
> 	int sensors_get_label(const sensors_chip_name *name, int feature, char **result)
> to
> 	char *sensors_get_label(const sensors_chip_name *name, int feature)
> 
> Errors can be reported with a NULL pointer.
> 
> * Rename sensors_get_feature() and sensors_set_feature() to
> sensors_get_value() and sensors_set_value(), respectively. Rationale:
> the new names better reflect what the functions do.
> 
> * Change the prototype of sensors_get_detected_chips from
> 	const sensors_chip_name *sensors_get_detected_chips(int *nr)
> to
> 	const sensors_chip_name *sensors_get_detected_chips(const sensors_chip_name *name, int *nr)
> 
> The application would pass a chip name possibly containing wildcards,
> so sensors_get_detected_chips() could check for matches itself (using
> sensors_match_chip). Passing an all-wildcard chip name (or NULL?) would
> restore the old behavior. This makes it easier to let the user chose a
> subset of chips to print (as can be done with sensors' command line) by
> moving the code into the library. We may then be able to make
> sensors_match_chip private, as this is the last use in sensors and
> sensord.
> 
> * Drop SENSORS_MODE_NO_RW and SENSORS_MODE_RW. The mode is a bitfield,
> we typically set, or test for, a specific bit. As a matter of fact,
> these two symbols aren't used anywhere in libsensors, sensors, sensord,
> ksensors nor xsensors.
> 
> If anyone has objections or comments, please let me know.
> 

All suggested changes sound fine to me.

Regards,

Hans


_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors