From: GStreamer (bugzilla.gnome.org) <bug...@bu...> - 2006-08-31 17:28:52
|
Do not reply to this via email (we are currently unable to handle email responses and they get discarded). You can add comments to this bug at http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D353475 GStreamer | gstreamer (core) | Ver: HEAD CVS Tim-Philipp M=C3=BCller changed: What |Removed |Added -------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- Severity|normal |enhancement ------- Comment #4 from Tim-Philipp M=C3=BCller 2006-08-31 17:28 UTC ---= ---- The first question is whether we would want to support arbitrary protocol= s in gnomevfssrc in the first place, or rather only support known-to-be-good-and-stable protocols like we do now. If we add new API for something like this, we might want to consider thin= gs like per-protocol ranks as well (and whether we want to cover that with t= he same API or a separate piece of API). In your patch in gst_uri_handler_uri_is_supported() you do: + g_return_val_if_fail (iface->uri_is_supported !=3D NULL, FALSE); That doesn't look quite right to me. g_return_val_if_fail() should only b= e used to catch programming errors and invalid input and such. If non-implementa= tion of the uri_is_supported method is acceptable (and it is, since it is an optional addition), the function must not throw a warning and just return= FALSE as the documentation suggests (or ideally fall back on going through the protocols array and decide based on that). --=20 Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=3Demail ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug. |