Re: [ft-devel] [freetype2] hooks-via-module-property d94f52b: Use `FT_Property_Set' to set the hooks. One less API function.

[Moazin Khatri]

Before I look into all of this, I want to clear a possible misunderstanding. Have you looked at this commit which followed the one this thread is about:

https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/freetype/freetype2.git/commit/?h=GSoC-2019-moazin&id=8a40ef90ea2a819ea7c9b3eb03b2f312af0dbec9

Abusing it to set pointer to code, Just Unacceptable.

Because, after this commit, I am not abusing it to set pointer to code. I am abusing it to set a structure of four function pointers. 

Let me know if your concerns remain the same with this change.

Meanwhile, I should dig into the things you mentioned. I am new to C design patterns and thus unaware of standard practices. 

On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 11:47 PM Behdad Esfahbod <address@hidden> wrote:

On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 4:34 PM Moazin Khatri <address@hidden> wrote:

Just want to express that this is very, *very*, /very/, VERY, bad.

Thank you for pointing that out. However, ... 

The whole property API is a big anti-pattern that FreeType has adopted.  Still, using it to set boolean, integer, or string values is justifiable.

Please explain to me why it's an "anti-pattern"? What's wrong with the property API? What could be a better alternative? Just for my own understanding! :)

It should go the other way around.  You should explain what you gain by using this scheme instead of what's standard practice in the language we are dealing with (C).

For all I see you are throwing out type safety and things that compiler and linker can check for, to gain.... nothing.  "Fewer API" is not a goal.  It shouldn't be.  Why don't we move ALL API into that one call?!

Also Google around why ioctl is a bad syscall for example.

--

behdad
http://behdad.org/