Re: [gupnp] Introspection is here!

Hey again!
  One more thing:

> > I see your point. But as we don't expose any UPnP internals in the API
> > anywhere else, I would prefer to keep this API minimal also. Can't the
> > device spy just use g_type_name() and min/max value stuff to denote
> > types? We don't *have* to use UPnP terminology, do we?

   The thing is that the device snifer will be (and the intel one is
too) designed for UPnP and not that it will be just another client
that uses UPnP. Also the gtypes with their limits would be sufficient
to inform the user exactly what kind of numeric argument is expected
but this is not true for the types represented as strings. E.g the
user won't know if it's just a string or a bin.hex that is expected.

-- 
Regards,
Zeeshan Ali
--
To unsubscribe send a mail to gupnp+unsubscribe\@o-hand.com