From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:36231)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1Sdm3C-00029y-84
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 13:35:43 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1Sdm3A-0002AG-J6
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 13:35:41 -0400
Received: from mail-ob0-f173.google.com ([209.85.214.173]:53010)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1Sdm3A-0002A6-EK
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 13:35:40 -0400
Received: by obbwd20 with SMTP id wd20so5955391obb.4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 10:35:39 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4FD4DAE9.9060803@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 12:35:37 -0500
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1339097465-22977-1-git-send-email-afaerber@suse.de>
	<1339097465-22977-2-git-send-email-afaerber@suse.de>
	<4FD1530D.4010706@codemonkey.ws> <4FD4C1F3.2010203@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <4FD4C1F3.2010203@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH qom-next 1/7] qdev: Push state up to Object
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= <afaerber@suse.de>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 06/10/2012 10:49 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 08/06/2012 03:19, Anthony Liguori ha scritto:
>>>
>>> +typedef enum ObjectState {
>>> +    OBJECT_STATE_INITIALIZED = 1,
>>> +    OBJECT_STATE_REALIZED,
>>> +} ObjectState;
>>
>> I think using a bool would be better since it reduces the temptation to
>> add additional states.
>
> In fact someone already discussed having a third state for block
> devices... :)

This is *exactly* why bool is better.  Because too many people will be tempted 
to add stuff that doesn't belong in Object.

A classic problem with OO design is bloating base classes--especially when you 
have one common base class.

Everything in Object must be relevant to all subclasses, not just some.  Having 
an OBJECT_STATE_OPENED only makes sense for BlockDevices.  Therefore the concept 
of opened should live in the BlockDevice parent class.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

>
> Paolo