On Sat, 7 Jan 2006 00:35:42 +0900 Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. BTW, ecore_con could probably use a line buffered option. More consistency. With consistency comes the ability to merge almost identical code and APIs into a better whole. Things become easier for developers to use coz it's all the same.
pgprDwwJnqzY4.pgp
Description: PGP signature
