From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: From: Marcel Holtmann To: BlueZ development In-Reply-To: <1203936997.2754.198.camel@cookie.hadess.net> References: <1200566602.26259.89.camel@cookie.hadess.net> <1200663790.2676.3.camel@cookie.hadess.net> <1201871693.2389.326.camel@cookie.hadess.net> <1201882130.2389.334.camel@cookie.hadess.net> <1201882826.2389.337.camel@cookie.hadess.net> <1202300325.3491.21.camel@cookie.hadess.net> <1202303303.3491.30.camel@cookie.hadess.net> <1202345972.3491.42.camel@cookie.hadess.net> <1203730228.2754.105.camel@cookie.hadess.net> <1203877746.2754.134.camel@cookie.hadess.net> <1203936997.2754.198.camel@cookie.hadess.net> Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 21:36:43 +0100 Message-Id: <1203971803.28528.91.camel@californication> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Bluez-devel] [PATCH] Updated sendto Reply-To: BlueZ development List-Id: BlueZ development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: bluez-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: bluez-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Hi Bastien, > > So current patch is not acceptable. It is actually bad. So first > > action must be to remove all these useless comments. An example is this: > > > > + /* Go into main loop */ > > gtk_main(); > > > > Put comments where the code is unclear and not were everybody knows > > what it is doing. This is a perfect example of wrongly commenting code. > > Done locally. do you have an updated patch or do I have to do it by myself. > > Second of all, I am unhappy with all this usage of gtk_main_quit() in > > various functions. Can we not just structure the code a lot more > > cleaner to avoid multiple calls of it. > > I don't understand what you mean there. What I currently got from code review is that we simply call gtk_main_quit() instead of having a little bit better structured code. Just stopping the mainloop at more then 1 or 2 places doesn't seem right to me. Feel free to convince me otherwise. > > Besides the signal handling, I > > would expect one extra call in case we automatically wanna close the > > progress dialog. > > Why? If there's no errors, why would you want to see it's finished? What > information would be in the dialogue that could be useful? That behavior is fine with me. However that was not what I said. So I expect two gtk_main_quit() inside the code. One for SIGTERM and one when we are actually done with the transfer. Regards Marcel ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Bluez-devel mailing list Bluez-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bluez-devel