Re: sysbus_create_simple Vs qdev_create

[Daniel P . Berrangé]

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 12:23:12PM -0400, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 07:10:57AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> > Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com> writes:
> > 
> > > I'd also note that the use of "parent" in the code is also
> > > ambiguous.  It can mean:
> > >
> > > * QOM parent type, i.e. TypeInfo.parent.  Related fields:
> > >   * parent_class members of class structs
> > >   * parent_obj members of object structs
> > 
> > I hate the use of "parent" and "child" for a super- / subtype relation.
> > 
> > Correcting the terminology there would be short term pain for long term
> > gain.  Worthwhile?
> 
> I don't know.  It looks like the terminology came from GObject.

One day I would love it if we got QOM to actually use GObject, so
from that POV I'd be inclined to stick with the "parent" term.

Personally I've not seen a problem with the term "parent" in
this scenario. The class inheritance metaphor maps reasonably
clearly to a parent/child metaphor. 

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: https://berrange.com      -o-    https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org         -o-            https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org    -o-    https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|