Re: [E-devel] ecore_exe event type consistancy.

[dan s. <ze...@pe...>]

David Seikel wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Jan 2006 02:50:03 +1000 David Seikel <on...@gm...>
> wrote:
> 
> 
>>On Sat, 7 Jan 2006 00:35:42 +0900 Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
>><ra...@ra...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>i would argue that ECORE_EVENT_EXE is fine as its a CORE ecore event
>>>(not a sub ecore system like ecore_con)... ?
>>
>>I'm thinking consistency in naming things IPC related.  I think that
>>merging fork'n'pipe with ecore_ipc might be good, it's just another
>>IPC method, why should it be different?  Most of the ways of dealing
>>with it from the ecore users perspective are mostly similar.  Most of
>>the differences are simply due to current inconsistent naming and
>>lack of an exe add event.  The user doesn't see any core ecore / sub
>>ecore issues, it's all ecore_*_whatever to them.
>>
>>As I said before, the naming of the exit event is historical, and I'm
>>prepared to wear that.  The data event is new though, and should be
>>consistent with other IPC data events.  It's semantics are the same,
>>hell most of the code was just cut'n'paste from ecore_con.
> 
> 
> I've thought about it some more, and the fact that the ecore_exe
> functions are all called ecore_exe_* like the "sub" ecore functions
> means that I consider it to be more consistent.  The style guide says to
> use name spaced, object oriented style names, so ecore_exe_* and
> ECORE_EXE_* has to be the way to go.
> 
> I'll make these changes, but keep ECORE_EVENT_EXE_EXIT around for
> historical reasons (so no one can blame me for beaking evidence).

Um, we haven't even had a release yet. Do we want to start carrying 
around depreciated apis?

dan