On 1/14/07, Daniel Espinosa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2007/1/13, Vivien Malerba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On 1/13/07, Daniel Espinosa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 2007/1/12, Murray Cumming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > On Fri, 2007-01-12 at 14:17 -0600, Daniel Espinosa wrote: > > > > > I plan to do the following API changes: > > > > > > > > > > In libgda: > > > > > > > > > > gda_query_field_is_parameter to gda_query_field_get_is_parameter > > > > > > > I supose this chante is Ok done. > > > > > > gda_entity_field_get_g_type to gda_entity_field_get_data_type > > > > I'd prefer you don't change that las one as it's a kind of > > "convention" in the Libgda's API (I mean get_g_type to get a GType), > > to avoid confusion because "data type" can also refer to the > > GdaDictType or the DBMS type. > > > > may be get_data_g_type enstead?, this is just to help in C# binginds
Seems good as long as it ends with g_type. > > > > > > > > > Sounds good to me. > > > > > > > > > > I'm preparing the patch... > > > > > > > > A sugestion: > > > > > > > > > > Could I move the gda_dict_field_set_dict_type as a virtual method in > > > > > GdaEntityField (as a gda_entity_field_set_dict_type)? > > > > > This is to avoid some errors in API autogeneration in C# bindings > > > > > (there are other methods to avoid this using Gda.metadata rules, then > > > > > this isn't a problem). > > > > Ok, as there is already a get_dict_type() method. > > > > Ok done. Ok. BTW did you get your SVN account? _______________________________________________ gnome-db-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-db-list
