gio: more ergonomic ActionEntry initialization

[allan2]

This aligns the initialization with other gio and gtk4 builders.

Before:

ActionEntry::builder("name").build()

Proposed:

ActionEntry::new("name")
ActionEntry::builder().name("name").build()

[sdroege]

AFAIU the name is mandatory and can't be the empty string, and that's why it is a parameter to the builder constructor.

[bilelmoussaoui]

AFAIU the name is mandatory and can't be the empty string, and that's why it is a parameter to the builder constructor.

Yes that is the whole reason why. For now, the code generator always generates that pattern for builders but ultimately, once we have a way to know which properties are required, we would generate builder patterns that match them instead of not generating them at all.

[allan2]

That makes sense. It was because I saw UriLauncher::new("myurl") and UriLauncher::builder().uri("myurl").build(), so I wasn't sure whether mandatory parameters should be in the builder call or not.

Could I still implement ActionEntry::new then?

[bilelmoussaoui]

That makes sense. It was because I saw UriLauncher::new("myurl") and UriLauncher::builder().uri("myurl").build(), so I wasn't sure whether mandatory parameters should be in the builder call or not.

yeah, we have to figure out how to improve those in the future.

Could I still implement ActionEntry::new then?

Sure

[sdroege]

What's the plan here?