Re: GObject's property with _ issue

Hi,

On 2/20/06, Torben Nehmer <[email protected]> wrote:
> One question: why can we use underscores in class names, but not in properties?
> Sounds strange.

The problem Piotras encountered is that GLib canonicalizes the GObject
property names to dash-naming-convention. This makes sense given the
GTK background of GLib, but does tend to cause problems with language
bindings. See for example:
http://www.sicem.biz/personal/lgs/docs/gobject-python/gobject-tutorial.html#d0e482

The class names are not canonicalized by GLib.

> Jukka, I didn't fully understood how you would do that name
> mapping, but it at least *sounded* good for me.

My idea is based on the fact that we in any case need to keep track of
more information per property than what is done by GLib. The
MidgardObjectProperty class could keep track of the original NCName of
a property so that it can be used to map properties correctly.

For example if we have a property named "some_ComplexName", then
midgard-core would keep track of the following mappings:

    sql("some_ComplexName") => "some_ComplexName"
    glib("some_ComplexName") => "some-ComplexName"

Midgard-PHP would keep track of the following:

    php("some_ComplexName") => "some_complexname"

And Midgard-Java:

    java("some_CompexName") => "some_ComplexName"

These name mappings could be automatically applied and unapplied
whenever the API boundaries are crossed. Things like QB and reflection
capabilities would do this translation also for all property name
strings.

I agree that this solution is a bit complex conceptually, but in
practice it would be totally transparent to applications.

BR,

Jukka Zitting

--
Yukatan - http://yukatan.fi/ - [email protected]
Software craftsmanship, JCR consulting, and Java development