Re: Introspection binary format comments

[muppet <scott asofyet org>]

On Feb 25, 2005, at 6:02 PM, Owen Taylor wrote:

>  - Terminology needs some work. I don't think 'interface' can be
>    used for the things stored in 'entries', since that's confusing
>    with GInterface.

Seconded.


>  - Are we really confident that the type information for a
>    metadata blob will fit into 64k? Creating a metadata blob
>    for GTK+ probably will give us an answer for that ... if
>    it's less than 32k, we are probably OK for just about
>    any conceivable library.

What impact will this have on people using gtk+ and friends on embedded 
devices, where both RAM and ROM are expensive and there are month-long 
battles over a few kilobytes?  Can the metadata be disabled at 
configure time?


>  - For virtual functions, structure fields, boxed fields
>    finding offsets requires walking over the lists of fields
>    and applying architecture dependent knowledge of struct
>    packing. Would it be better to just include the struct
>    offset into the metadata blob?

Yes, please.  No point in spreading the offset calculation logic all 
over the place, let the compiler keep it.


>  - Do we need information about memory management for
>    FieldBlob ... if I replace the value, do I need to free
>    the old one? Or do we restrict FieldBlob to things that
>    don't need memory management. (Think GtkTargetEntry
>    which has a string...)

I often wonder that simply when writing in C.  When i set a new 
background pixmap in a GtkStyle, am i supposed to unref the old one?


>  - Do all StructBlob types have constructors? Or, do we
>    want to support construction on the heap for things like
>    GdkRectangle or GtkTargetEntry?

This is necessary for language bindings.  Or did i misunderstand your 
intent?


--
"Ears!  They help us -- Ears!  They help us hear th-- 
Ea--E--E--E--Ears!"
  -- A Sesame Street singing toy, with Yvonne gleefully pressing
    the button over and over and over and over and...