Jens Alfke wrote:
It's not so much making an object responsible for another object's internals, as simply managing a relation from that other object. In other words, I'm the one who told the window to point its delegate property to me, so it's OK for me to tell it to point it to nil when I go away.
I agree with the intent: managing the relationship. I also agree with the stated mechanism for breaking the relationship: telling the other object to point to nil (although I would say "before I go away", not "when I go away").
I think the distinction is in how the relationship is managed. You've described breaking the relationship by telling the recipient to change its delegate to nil. I'm not sure that's the same relationship of the OP's 'connection' property. It's a gray area, mainly because it's not clear that the 'connection' relationship is always A->B->A. I saw nothing to suggest that A->B, C->B, D->B was impossible, in which case there are more difficulties than just a retain cycle.
-- GG _______________________________________________ Cocoa-dev mailing list ([email protected]) Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list. Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/cocoa-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [email protected]
