Just to make sure that all data had been written, while the later
can finish successfully without actually write all the data it was
requested to write.
This is related to bug 698275, which did not cover all cases.
The problem here is that the dconf can in certain situation claim
that everything changed (path "/" changed), which GSettingsBinding
propagates to a GObject property unconditionally and GObject's
property setter (g_object_set_property()) also notifies about
the property change unconditionally, despite the real descendant
property setter properly checks for the value change. After all
these false notifications a callback on "notify" signal is called
and possibly an expensive operation is run.
Checking whether the value really changed helps in performance, for
which were added new e-util functions:
e_signal_connect_notify()
e_signal_connect_notify_after()
e_signal_connect_notify_swapped()
e_signal_connect_notify_object()
which have the same prototype as their GLib counterparts, but they allow
only "notify::..." signals and they test whether the value really changed
before they call the registered callback.
Win32 headers have a #define for 'interface', which breaks the build
when this word is used in the code, thus replace it to 'iface',
the same way as GLib or GTK+ code use to have it. (See bug #722068.)
This makes the code free of Coverity scan issues.
It is sometimes quite pedantic and expects/suggests some
coding habits, thus certain changes may look weird, but for a good
thing, I hope. The code is also tagged with Coverity scan
suppressions, to keep the code as is and hide the warning too.
Also note that Coverity treats g_return_if_fail(), g_assert() and
similar macros as unreliable, and it's true these can be disabled
during the compile time, thus it brings in other set of 'weird'
changes.
Some cards can have two PINs, one 'global' and one 'application'.
NSS provides which token is required, but Evolution didn't show
that information to a user.
This reverts commit 2b507716b2.
The commit contains not a single comment as to why these custom priority
values are being used. The rationale needs to be documented in the code,
either at each call point or preferrably at a centralized priority value
definition.
