Re: DiskDevice API 2.3 remarks

On 2003-05-27 at 15:00:03 [-0700], Ingo Weinhold wrote:
> "Axel Dörfler" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > "Ingo Weinhold" <bonefish-CFLBMwTPW48UNGrzBIF7/[email protected]> wrote:
> > > * uint8 BDiskDeviceJob::Progress() const;
> > > I would love to see a float return value. I'd say, the most 
> > > natural
> > > range for it was [0, 1], but as BStatusBar's max value defaults to
> > > 100,
> > > I could live with that, too. The same goes for
> > > B_DISK_DEVICE_JOB_SIMPLE_PROGRESS, of course.
> > 
> > I would also prefer a float - we shouldn't let the BStatusBar's
> > habits
> > rule our world :-)
> 
> Oh, no, a misunderstanding: BStatusBar also uses float. It just
> defaults to the range [0.0, 100.0], while I'd favor [0.0, 1.0]. Not a
> big deal, though. :-)

Well, either way is fine with me; I just picked integers originally 
because the last status bar control I used (in Windows) used integers. 
Which do y'all want, though: [0.0, 100.0] or [0.0, 1.0]? Doesn't really 
matter to me.

On 2003-05-27 at 14:19:59 [-0700], Ingo Weinhold wrote:
> * BPartition::SetParameters():
> It should read `const char *contentParameters'.

Good point, thanks.

> * BPartition::ValidateInitialize():
> Why is it gone? Perhaps there was a reason, but I can't remember.
> BDiskSystem::ValidateInitialize() is still there, though. If the 
> method
> was removed by accident and we want to have both, then they should 
> have
> a `const char *parameters' argument (that would be content parameters,
> of course).
> 
> * Would BDiskSystem::ValidateSet{Child}Parameters() make sense?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2003-04-05 at 12:49:21 [-0800], Ingo Weinhold wrote:
* ValidateSetParameters(), ValidateInitialize(): I don't think, they 
make much sense. For one, the `parameters' parameter is not very 
helpful -- the supplied argument can not be delete, nor the value 
returned for it instead. More importantly, the only way to get a 
parameter string is to ask a parameter editor. And it should be safe to 
assume that it won't return nonsense. If the API user supplies an 
invalid string, the job simply fails.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Why the BDiskSystem:: version is still around (but without the 
parameters parameter), I'm not sure. I probably just overlooked its 
removal. Other than that, I still think it seems reasonable to assume 
no validation is needed. I'll just get rid of the BDiskSystem:: version 
unless you object. 

-Tyler