Re: About gsettings aborting on unkown schemas

[Havoc Pennington <hp pobox com>]

Hi,

On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 5:47 AM, Christian Dywan <christian lanedo com> wrote:
> This is a great argument. There was a mistake. It made you notice the API is inconsistent, so you suddenly insist that GLib can't be improved further without rewriting all the functions....

It didn't "make me notice" - I've known about this issue for many
years, including in all the other threads about it. I also wrote the
GError API docs 11 years ago, which explain the issue. You can find
years-old emails with me making the same "duplicate error-throwing API
for bindings" point about libdbus, if you do some googling. This is a
15-year-old issue, or so.

It's a tradeoff. We could redo thousands of functions with duplicate
functions to be used only from language bindings, or we could live
with this design decision. I personally think 15 years of experience
show that we can survive without a major API redo.

I agree that g_warning/critical can be nicer than g_error in a certain
way, fwiw, though when it's up to me I make both abort and consider
them the same.

Anyway, I don't make the decision on this.

 I'm just trying to tell you why it is how it is and just how long
it's been that way. This thread is hardly the first one to suddenly
realize this is how GLib works and get upset about it. But GLib has
always worked this way.

There are other people you'd have to convince if you wanted to change anything.

Havoc