Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
I was looking over HARMONY-1625 and there are a few things I don't
understand...
I see things like this :
const char *temp = m_env->properties->get(XBOOTCLASSPATH,
INTERNAL_PROPERTIES);
....
STD_FREE((void*)temp);
1) why is temp a const? it's not - we'll free it later
The 'const' and free() are orthogonal.
The 'const' keywords here only means kind of hint for compiler, like
'user is not allowed to change the object'. This prevents things like
temp[i] = xx at compile time.
just my $.02.
--
Thanks,
Alex
2) I was going to suggest that having the user call free() is an awful
idea,, but I believe that you've actually added a recent change -
destroy_properties_string() or something to fix this - I assume that
this is something we can clean up.
That said, I also see :
+void Properties::destroy_value_string(const char* value) {
+ STD_FREE((void*)value);
+void Properties::destroy_properties_keys(const char** keys) {
+ int i = 0;
+ while (keys[i] != NULL) {
+ if (keys[i]) {
+ STD_FREE((void*)keys[i]);
+ }
+ i++;
+ }
+ STD_FREE(keys);
Which I think is slightly confusing. I think that you need
destroy_string(char *)
destroy_string(char **)
and not distinguish between keys and values, unless they become classes
in their own right.
3) looking at it, maybe the whole table number thing
('INTERNAL_PROPERTIES') isn't a good idea when used in code. Wouldn't
it be more elegant to have multiple properties in the environment such that
m_env->internalProperties->get(XBOOTCLASSPATH);
or
m_env->javaProperties->get("java.home");
kind of thing for readability? it could map to the calls you have now...
Then we could pass properties objects safely to code that should only
have one or the other...
geir
