Re: [Banshee-List] Questions about a SafeUri patch

["Eric Schultz" <hammy charter net>]

My SafeUri "patch" can be found at
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=556787. It's not in a standard
diff format because my SVN needs to be update but once it is, I'll create a
diff and attach it as well.

-----Original Message-----
From: banshee-list-bounces gnome org [mailto:banshee-list-bounces gnome org]
On Behalf Of Aaron Bockover
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 9:15 AM
To: banshee-list gnome org; schule52 uwosh edu
Subject: Re: [Banshee-List] Questions about a SafeUri patch

It's hard to reply to this without seeing the code. What I can say is that
SafeUri is an extremely critical type in Banshee, and therefore a patch like
this would need to come with extensive unit tests to confirm identical
behavior with the GLib implementation.

I'm interested at looking at this code and working with you on that. Is
there a bug open for this where the code is attached?

Cheers,
Aaron

>>> "Eric Schultz" <schule52 uwosh edu> 10/16/08 8:08 PM >>>
I used the wrong email address so this may be double posted. Sorry any
inconvenience.

 

-----------

 

I've finished a patch so SafeUri.UriToFilename and SafeUri.FilenameToUri are
written in managed code, eliminating the need to call Glib. I have some
private helper methods, enums, and arrays that I've added to the SafeUri
class. I was wondering what kind of naming policy there is for these helper
items. I've named the helper methods according to their original name in
Glib (g_unescape_uri_string as an example). Should I name them something
different?

 

Secondly should these helper methods stay in SafeUri or should they be moved
into some other class?

 

Eric Schultz

 


_______________________________________________
Banshee-list mailing list
Banshee-list gnome org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/banshee-list