Subject: mir_connection_create_surface

From: Daniel van Vugt <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 12:09:46 +0800

I know I proposed this, but it feels ugly:
    mir_connection_create_surface

And other people have mentioned the same.

What do people think about making construction a special case, like:
    mir_create_surface
?

I know tvoss did not like this. But what do other people think?

---

From: Robert Ancell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 16:33:38 +1200

> I know tvoss did not like this. But what do other people think?
I like mir_connection_create_surface - it's consistent with the other
names and it's not likely to be used enough to warrant abbreviating.

---

From: Christopher James Halse Rogers <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 15:34:39 +1000

> names and it's not likely to be used enough to warrant abbreviating.

Seconded. I've got my beefs with the client API, but this isn't one of
them. It's verbose, but not annoyingly so, and surface creation is
infrequent.

---

From: Daniel van Vugt <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 13:57:28 +0800

If you have any "beefs" with the client API, better to discuss and 
resolve them sooner than later.

Who knows when a major (incompatible) API revision will occur again.

---

From: Christopher James Halse Rogers <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 16:20:40 +1000

> Who knows when a major (incompatible) API revision will occur again.

Mainly I still think the synchronous (and asynchronous) API could be
more beautiful.

The compromise we got was acceptable, though, so I'll leave it there.