Created attachment 204454 [details] [review]
Refactor IProperties interface a bit

- Rename to PropertiesProvider.
- Put into separate vala file.

Review of attachment 204454 [details] [review]:

::: src/machine.vala
@@ +4,3 @@
 using Gtk;
 
+private abstract class Boxes.Machine: Boxes.CollectionItem, Boxes.PropertiesProvider {

Why did you drop the "I" prefix for interfaces? We should be consistant here.

Review of attachment 204454 [details] [review]:

I would change title to s/Refactor/Move

(In reply to comment #2)
> Review of attachment 204454 [details] [review]:
> 
> ::: src/machine.vala
> @@ +4,3 @@
>  using Gtk;
> 
> +private abstract class Boxes.Machine: Boxes.CollectionItem,
> Boxes.PropertiesProvider {
> 
> Why did you drop the "I" prefix for interfaces? We should be consistant here.

There is only one other interface so we can call that inconsistent and change name of that instead. :) Was never a fan of indicating types in names, we might as well prefix all classnames with 'C' so I think it just makes the name ugly but if you feel strongly about this, we can keep the 'I' prefix.

I too prefer to keep the I for similar reasons explained here, but I don't feel very strongly about it.

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2728093/to-use-the-i-prefix-for-interfaces-or-not-to

Only that we should be consistant. Instead of changing things without real reasons, I prefer to keep it the way they are, or we could change it every second day.

(In reply to comment #5)
> I too prefer to keep the I for similar reasons explained here, but I don't feel
> very strongly about it.
> 
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2728093/to-use-the-i-prefix-for-interfaces-or-not-to

The top answer there has a fairly reasonable objection to it in the 2nd comment.

> Only that we should be consistant.

Won't argue against that.

> Instead of changing things without real
> reasons, I prefer to keep it the way they are, or we could change it every
> second day.

The reason would be to have a more meaningful/descriptive name.

(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > I too prefer to keep the I for similar reasons explained here, but I don't feel
> > very strongly about it.
> > 
> > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2728093/to-use-the-i-prefix-for-interfaces-or-not-to
> 
> The top answer there has a fairly reasonable objection to it in the 2nd
> comment.

 Oh and this answer makes more sense to me: http://stackoverflow.com/a/2728180/988490

(In reply to comment #7)
>  Oh and this answer makes more sense to me:
> http://stackoverflow.com/a/2728180/988490

Not to most people (on stackoverflow), and his points are either arguable or do not apply to Vala.

If you insist, please drop the 'I' everywhere, (and submit a patch to gobject tutorial ;)

Created attachment 204464 [details] [review]
Clean-up IProperties interface a bit

- Rename to IPropertiesProvider.
- Put into separate vala file.

Review of attachment 204464 [details] [review]:

ack

Attachment 204464 [details] pushed as 8a767e8 - Clean-up IProperties interface a bit