On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 11:47 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Cedric BAIL wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
>> wrote:
>> > Hi all, particularly cedric. I was to do the bindings for the new
>> > ethumb_client_exists() API and
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Cedric BAIL wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
> wrote:
> > Hi all, particularly cedric. I was to do the bindings for the new
> > ethumb_client_exists() API and got impressed by the number of
> > problems.
> >
> > - inconsistent api:
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
wrote:
> Hi all, particularly cedric. I was to do the bindings for the new
> ethumb_client_exists() API and got impressed by the number of
> problems.
>
> - inconsistent api: void* is the first callback parameter, see
> all EFL
Agreed, b
Hi all, particularly cedric. I was to do the bindings for the new
ethumb_client_exists() API and got impressed by the number of
problems.
- inconsistent api: void* is the first callback parameter, see
all EFL
- inconsistent api: missing ethumb_CLIENT prefix, like
Ethumb_Exists should be E
