On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 3:17 PM, Carsten Haitzler <ras...@rasterman.com>
wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 18:15:13 +0900 Jean-Philippe André <j...@videolan.org>
> said:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > Some of the argumentation here seems to lack a bit of a scientific
> > approach...
> > So, I looked for all occurrences of efl_add() (see PS for methodology).
> >
> > In all of EFL, without specific filters:
> >
> > Overall: 244 unique classes / 1572 occurrences
> > No parent: 119 unique classes / 472 occurrences
> > 48% of classes used without parent, accounting for 30% of all uses.
>
> i argue that the vast majority of those no parent cases should have a
> parent. i
> actually did a grep -r through efl too looking and almost all the cases
> with a
> null parent i noted were bugs and should be fixed. :) i specifically noted
> some
> of those examples (the efl_anim stuff for example - i filed a bug for it
> too).
> so while i didn't do numbers... i did do an analysis. quickly in about 2
> minutes. for a more detailed analysis. note when i say "loop should be
> parent"
> i mean loop directly OR some object that ultimately has a parent that is
> loop
> at the top of the object tree:
>
> src/benchmarks/eo/eo_bench_* (11)
> just benchmarking so not real code. (ignore)
> src/bin/elementary/test_*.c (86)
> all are bugs. every one should have loop as parent.
> src/examples/ecore/ecore_audio*.c: (7)
> all are bugs. loop should be parent (loop drives i/o for audio and cb's)
> src/examples/ecore/ecore_idler_example.c: (1)
> bug. loop as parent (commented out though)
> src/examples/ecore/ecore_poller_*.c (3)
> bug. loop should be parent
> src/examples/ecore/efl_io_*.c (8)
> bug. loop should be parent
> src/examples/ecore/efl_net_*.c (6)
> bug. loop should be parent
> src/examples/eio/eio_sentry.c (1)
> unknown
> src/examples/elementary/efl_ui_*.c (4)
> bug. loop should be parent
> src/examples/elementary/file*.c (9)
> bug. loop should be parent
> src/lib/ecore/ecore.c (1)
> bug. singleton vpath object will fail with multiple loops, so loop
> should be
> parent, but this is unused atm so it doesn't matter yet.
> src/lib/ecore/efl_loop.c (1)
> correct null parent usage
> src/lib/ecore/efl_model_composite_*.c (2)
> relatively sure these are bugs. in fact these files do a lot of:
> Efl_Promise *promise = efl_add(EFL_PROMISE_CLASS, efl_main_loop_get());
> and similar assuming only the main loop... which is wrong. they should
> get
> the correct loop, not always the main loop. lots of examples of this
> through
> efl.
> src/lib/ecore_con/ecore_con_*.c (5)
> bug. should use loop as parent
> src/lib/ector/cairo/ector_cairo_surface.c: (3)
> src/lib/ector/gl/ector_gl_surface.c: (3)
> src/lib/ector/software/ector_software_surface.c: (3) (9 total)
> this is actually ok since ector doesn't use any async events and needs
> no loop
> src/lib/edje/edje_*.c (10)
> bug. loop should be parent
> src/lib/efl/interfaces/efl_vpath_core.c: (1)
> bug. vpath needs to be loop driven due to the ability to do async lookups
> src/lib/efl/interfaces/efl_vpath_manager.c (1)
> bug. same as above
> src/lib/eio/eio_model.c: (1)
> smells like a bug. eoi would need a loop to drive it
> src/lib/elementary/efl_access.c: (1)
> bug. access relies on events and async (e.g. dbus) and so must have loop
> src/lib/elementary/efl_ui_*.c: (15)
> bug. need loop parent
> src/lib/elementary/elm_*.c (5)
> all look like bugs. need loop parent
> src/lib/evas/canvas/efl_animation*.c (7)
> bug. need loop parent
> src/lib/evas/canvas/efl_canvas_vg.c: (1)
> bug. need loop parent
>
> src/lib/evas/canvas/evas_main.c: (1)
> bug. need loop parent
> src/lib/evas/canvas/evas_vg_node.c: (1)
> bug. vg nodes should have a parent object - always
> src/lib/evas/gesture/efl_gesture_manager.c: (1)
> bug. need loop parent
> src/modules/evas/engines/gl_generic/evas_engine.c (3)
> src/modules/evas/engines/software_generic/evas_engine.c: (3) (6 total)
> correct. ector objects
> src/tests/ecore/ecore_test_ecore_audio.c (16)
> bug. need loop parent
> src/tests/ecore/ecore_test_promise2.c: (2)
> bug. need loop parent
> src/tests/ecore_con/ecore_con_test_efl_net_ip_address.c: (14)
> bug. need loop parent
> src/tests/efl/efl_test_model_*.c: (5)
> bug. need loop parent
> src/tests/efl_js/benchmark_object_impl.cc: (1)
> artificial benchmarking (so ignore)
> src/tests/efl_mono/libefl_mono_native_test.c: (1)
> artificial benchmarking (ignore)
> src/tests/eina_cxx/eina_cxx_test_*.cc (54)
> artificial testing of basic input/output through eo api
> src/tests/eio/eio_test_sentry.c: (20)
> bug. should have parent loop
> src/tests/eldbus/eldbus_test_*.c: (3)
> bug. should have loop parent
> src/tests/elementary/elm_test_*.c: (31)
> bug. should have loop parent
> src/tests/eo/access/access_main.c: (1)
> bug. should have loop parent
> src/tests/eo/children/children_main.c: (1)
> artificial eo testing - ignore
> src/tests/eo/composite_objects/composite_objects_main.c: (1)
> artificial eo testing - ignore
> src/tests/eo/constructors/constructors_main.c: (1)
> artificial testing - ignore
> src/tests/eo/function_overrides/function_overrides_main.c: (4)
> artificial testing - ignore
> src/tests/eo/interface/interface_main.c: (1)
> artificial testing - ignore
> src/tests/eo/mixin/mixin_main.c: (1)
> artificial testing - ignore
> src/tests/eo/signals/signals_main.c: (1)
> artificial testing - ignore
> src/tests/eo/suite/eo_test_*.c: (94)
> artificial test suite - ignore
> src/tests/eolian_js/eolian_js_test_constructor_method_impl.c: (2)
> artificial test suite (ignore)
>
> so i spent a lot of time going over every instance (well with a git grep
> for
> eo_add( and NULL on the same line).
>
>
> 459 instances of an eo_add with NULL. i get 1572 eo_add's with a git grep
> ...
> uses. my numbers differ from yours, but ok. we're doing rough stats here.
>
> 173 instances are artificial testing so let's remove them from our stats.
>
> 286 eo_adds with null that are "real". 1399 total adds when we remove the
> artificial testing ones. of those 286 instances, 1 is "unknown" if it's
> correct. let's remove that from our stats for now. 285 null adds, 1398
> total
> eo_add's. of the 285 null adds.. only 16 are correct uses with null
> parent. the
> rest are bugs. so ... 16/1398 are valid uses of null parent adds. that's
> 1.1%
> of use cases.
>
> but wait... of those 16 "null parent is ok" examples... 1 (the main loop
> add)
> is internal to efl only and never seen or used outside. loops are and will
> be
> created for you. so it's actually 15. 15/1398 is almost exactly 1%.
>
> my "spitballing rough number from a glance at git grep and where the calls
> were" was almost EXACTLY spot on. so i totally stand by my 1-2% number i
> roughly
> guessed in a 1 minute scan. of course now you forced me to spend an hour
> doing
> the above.
>
> now an accurate evaluation says it's 1%. and that's WITHIN efl. the 1 case
> of
> the main loop of the 16 will not exist outside of efl itself as loops will
> be
> created for you, and the other 15 are all ector.
>
> imho ector is a low level api for doing raw rendering and describing a
> display
> graph. in fact for sheer performance reasons as long as it's kept internal
> to
> efl it shouldn't be an eo api for speed reasons.
>
> will we ever expose a "direct immediate mode rendering api" to users? like
> ector? especially when we have evas vg objects that hide this? and in the
> event
> you used such an object... and if we exposed ector objects as the actual
> "vector tree/graph" ... they will then all have a parent - the vg object
> containing them.
>
> so i actually argue that the 16 cases i counted are actually 0. either
> ector
> shouldn't be eo and stay a low level api internally to efl, or we expose
> ector
> node graph within a vg object and then they all have parents.
>
> so after some analysis of the above... no a single "external use" of
> efl_add
> should be done with a null parent. and the only internal "valid" use is the
> efl_add of the loop objects. ector is kind of an odd/exception state atm as
> above.
>
Well if the thinking is "all objects should have a parent" then of course
exactly 0% of them will have no parent. Basically only a "thread" object
would be allowed to be parentless. Windows should then be created with a
loop as parent, internally reparented to evas if needed.
If we take this approach then @noparent is not even required (only one
special kind of object should have no parent, for which we could have an
internal api).
This could solve inconsistencies.
> In all of EFL, without EFL_UI_WIN_CLASS or ECORE_XXX:
> >
> > Overall: 226 unique classes / 1438 occurrences
> > No parent: 89 unique classes / 358 occurrences
> > 42% of classes used without parent, accounting for 27% of all uses.
> >
> >
> > Only in src/examples, without EFL_UI_WIN_CLASS or ECORE:
> >
> > Overall: 44 unique classes / 474 occurrences
> > No parent: 12 unique classes / 27 occurrences
> > 27% of classes used without parent, accounting for 5.7% of all uses.
> > (note: only one example with EFL_UI_WIN_CLASS)
> >
> >
> > In src/bin/elementary, without EFL_UI_WIN_CLASS or ECORE:
> >
> > Overall: 49 unique classes / 303 occurrences
> > No parent: 14 unique classes / 54 occurrences
> > 29% of classes used without parent, accounting for 18% of all uses.
> > (note: those classes are animation and interpolator)
> > (note2: 34 occurences of WIN class - no parent)
> >
> >
> > Conclusions:
> >
> > 0. This analysis is flawed by design due to a lack of real usage.
>
> correct. the above numbers include lots of code that needs to not use null
> parents. my more detailed analysis shows my numbers of 1-5% to be
> incredibly
> generous... in current efl it's actually 0%. every existing instance of an
> efl
> add with null inside efl or in tests is a bug (excepting the above as i
> described).
>
> > 1. Those numbers differ from the values given in the below email.
> > While I understand where this "maybe 1 or 2% of all objects [are created
> > without a parent]" comes from, it's not based on facts.
>
> actually it is... because almost all the instances of adding with null
> parents
> are bugs atm. even many without null parents are currently bugs (they use
> the
> wrong parent - eg always get the mainloop singleton instead of use the
> correct
> loop parent of that object like the model examples i pointed to).
>
> > @noparent makes sense. A NULL check in efl_add would then help.
>
> that is my compromise. or what i am thinking is a good compromise. that in
> the
> very very very very few exceptions where we allow null parents... we
> specifically tag it.
>
Might as well have no exception, except internally for a special TLS
"thread" object that would be the root object to rule them all.
> A different API then wouldn't hurt either IMHO (maybe efl_new?
> > efl_add_single? efl_create? or whatever -- efl_add then can NOT be called
> > with NULL).
>
> once the bugs are fixed... at this point we'll be create an api though with
> ZERO external use outside of efl and only 16 instances within efl itself.
>
There were no "bugs" until it somehow was decided that all objects should
have a parent.
as i said. we should be policing the null parents because basically 99% of
> efl
> objects (or instances of their adds) do not allow null parents.. or SHOULD
> not
> once we've fixed everything up.
>
> > 2. The argumentation in this email chain again leads nowhere. The
> original
> > confusion remains mostly unaddressed.
>
> i think not. i made the argument that it's not really confusing - it
> follows a
> simple rule... BUT that reality is in no real life cases will anyone using
> the
> efl api be adding objects with a null parent. it's a "0% of use cases"
> thing.
> so as there is no valid instance of doing an add with a null parent... why
> do
> we have to make things more confusing by even having an api that
> encourages it?
>
> > Felipe mentioned that ownership and references are mixed. So the proposal
> > for efl_release (or detach, close, invalidate, ...) makes sense to me.
> > In fact we have issues sometimes with efl_del as inside a destructor we
> > already lost our parent (thus all efl_provider_find and related calls
> will
> > fail).
>
> i brought up this issue specifically already in this and related threads
> and
> said it's horrible and painful and unparenting should be done outside the
> the
> constructor (after last constructor called). not having a parent when
>
"destructor (after last destructor called)" -- I guess?
> destructor is called is leading to some major ugliness in objects having to
> manually track their loop so they at least know what loop they did belong
> to
> during destruction so they can clean up some internals like "fd handlers"
> etc.
>
yup
> > Also, quite a few times I've also been looking for a "deleted" event that
> > would happen after destruction, and not before.
>
> well there is the case for a del that is called just before destructors are
> called so everything in the object is still there. that's what we have now
> (or
> should have). there might be the case for another callback to be called in
> the
> finally destructor just when all the event callbacks are about to be
> cleaned
> out. you couldnt call something after the actual final destruction though
> as
> the object now no longer exists... :)
> I had to introduce a very ugly API very badly called "allow_parent_unref"
> > in efl.object because some objects need a parent but they should be
> > unref'ed by someone else (efl_part objects but not only).
> >
> > So, I think it would make sense to investigate efl_terminate, and
> > evas_object_del would just call efl_terminate, hiding the object or
> > starting destruction, then let the parent (either evas or another canvas
> > object) do the final unref/unparent and destroying everything that's
> left.
> >
> >
> > Last note: @owned is rarely used with objects:
> > - Efl.Net.Ip_Address create (factory pattern, replaces efl_add, but I
> think
> > if there's a parent then we shouldn't tag as @owned)
> > - efl_duplicate (creates a new object like efl_add)
> >
> >
> > Anyway I think experiments only can tell us what's best. I see 3 items:
> > - @noparent tag
>
> that i agreed with... and there are almost no instances that would use it.
> loop
> is one. in fact it should have a "never call efl_add on me - ever". ...
> unless
> we want to get into the complexity of child and parent loops within one
> thread.
> i really dislike that complexity and would at this stage want to just ban
> it
> entirely thus no one ever should efl_add a loop. ... except inside efl ...
>
> > - efl_new (= efl_add without a parent -- requires @noparent if we want
> > strong NULL check)
>
> right now we have no "public" instances of this being allowed. in future i
> am
> imagining possibly shared objects that are transported from thread to
> thread
> being able to be like this (that's my 1-2% number). even then they may
> still
> have some global parent "app" object they belong to. and that app object
> would
> be "created for you". so even then... i don't see a need to allow null
> parents
> (except the app object itself which will like loop, be created for you).
>
> > - efl_invalidate / efl_terminate (I prefer efl_close :P)
>
> i actually prefer close too. shorter.
But as cedric said there is file close (and specifically
efl.io.closer.close). Assuming this "invalidate" is a method (declared in
.eo, available in bindings), its name shouldn't conflict :)
Anyway this opens some questions:
- do we really want to have parents for all objects? (basically except for
loop or app or some thread root object)
- should we even go as far as forbidding null parent? or do we still want
to have this exceptional case?
- then what happens when parent_set(NULL) is called? should this call
invalidate automatically?
Or am I going too far here and we should just try to have parents on all
objects for our API as a policy only (objects declared outside of EFL would
then chose if they need a parent or not)
//The following thoughts assume we have parents on ALL objects (except app
magic obj).//
So, to summarize the idea:
- efl_add() -> always with a parent
- efl_invalidate() -> ??? does not unref
- efl_parent_set(null) -> the parent calls invalidate, then unrefs which
calls the destructor and then actually set parent to null
- efl_del() -> always parent_set(null), no if
- efl_unref() -> only to be used after efl_ref()
- efl_unref() to 0 ref -> error case as it is now, destroys the object but
prints an ERR (bindings should be safe). normal for efl_part().
- efl_add_ref() -> only to be used by bindings, always with a parent,
always has 2 refs. requires implicit (by binding) efl_unref(). if used in
C, requires both efl_del and efl_unref to delete, unref only if we leave it
to the parent
- efl_destructor() -> called with a parent, but zero ref.
- efl_part() -> no change (returns an auto-deleted object except in
bindings -- as implemented for C++ already)
what exactly should happen in invalidate? for evas object just hide and
mark as delete_me?
one can then wonder if the parent ref is necessary: no ref + no parent =
deleted, no ref but parent = still alive.
- "invalidate" event is called when invalidate begins, "del" event is
emitted when destruction begins, "destroyed" event emitted after it's all
done
Sorry... I think I'm still tired from jetlag... So please correct me if I'm
wrong.
But I am worried of making any radical change at this point in time... So
let's make sure we have something solid that we're all happy about. The
less changes the better.
Best regards,
>
> > Best regards,
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 2:43 PM, Carsten Haitzler <ras...@rasterman.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 04 Jan 2018 17:18:35 +0000 Andrew Williams <
> a...@andywilliams.me>
> > > said:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I don't think I can do this any longer. Any comment I make about
> > > usability
> > > > is met with
> > > >
> > > > "it's easy to understand if you know the internal state/functioning
> of
> > > the
> > > > object".
> > >
> > > believe what you want... i described it in a single if statement. it
> > > requires
> > > no knowledge of internal state. it requires knowing just this:
> > >
> > > if (parent) { parent now responsible for unreffing }
> > > else { you (the caller) are responsible for unreffing when done }
> > >
> > > requires nothing more than that. why do you claim you need to know
> internal
> > > state? the above if has nothing to do with internal state. it has
> TOTALLy
> > > to do
> > > with externally provided params. it's the same logic as (assuming
> there is
> > > an
> > > efl_child_add that has a parent param that must be non-null, and
> efl_add
> > > now
> > > drops parent param as it's assumed to be NULL):
> > >
> > > if (used efl_child_add) { parent now responsible for unreffing }
> > > else (used efl_add) { you (the caller) are responsible for unreffing
> when
> > > done }
> > >
> > > both are conditions/data provided by the caller. one is a choice by
> > > parameter
> > > and the other is a choice by function call name.
> > >
> > > > My premise is still
> > > >
> > > > "with efl_add sometimes returning ownership and other times not this
> is
> > > > confusing for the developer"
> > >
> > > totally based on input provided by the caller. examples:
> > >
> > > fopen("filename", "r");
> > > vs
> > > fopen("filename", "w");
> > >
> > > with one i can only call fread() on the result anxd the other i can
> only
> > > call
> > > fwrite(). by your logic this is highly confusing to developers and libc
> > > should
> > > have:
> > >
> > > fopen_read("filename");
> > > +
> > > fopen_write("filename");
> > >
> > > because developers would otherwise be confused.
> > >
> > > > I wanted for us to present something that is clear and simple without
> > > > needing to know internal state or reading the EFL source code.
> > > > It seems I will not succeed.
> > >
> > > my argument is that more constructors make for something LESS simple.
> > > while it
> > > removes the parameter you do not like, it means you have to choose
> which
> > > constructor to use based on situation and know about both.
> > >
> > > also i argue that 95%+ of uses will be with pent not allowed to be
> NULL.
> > > efl.net is reliant on a loop to drive it. all of the ui is too. the
> loop
> > > and
> > > its related constructs are too. ecore_audio is too. well it is reliant
> on
> > > the
> > > main loop to drive it but it may not actually technically rely on
> parent
> > > object
> > > (yet, but it should). eio is reliant on parent objects too. ledbus too.
> > >
> > > in fact a quick look at out current efl interfaces means EVERY SINGLE
> > > object we
> > > have requires a parent EXCEPT the loop object ... and that is created
> for
> > > you
> > > (and will be in future with threads and their loops). so in fact using
> a
> > > non-NULL parent is in fact invalid in 100% of efl use cases. this is
> why i
> > > keep
> > > pushing back strongly. your argument for confusion is actually
> covering 0
> > > use
> > > cases (and the only reason objects can be created with NULL parents
> now is
> > > that
> > > we aren't policing or enforcing parents at this point and we SHOULD
> be. we
> > > SHOULD have a specific "@noparent" tag for classes that indicate an
> object
> > > is
> > > allowed to have no parent - it'll be by far the exception and not the
> > > rule...
> > > by exception i mean maybe 1 or 2% of all objects). does this incredibly
> > > rare
> > > case justify multiplying the number of constructors we have and making
> a
> > > longer
> > > winded one (efl_child_add) which will be actually 99% of use cases?
> > >
> > > i think we're at a position where we see 2 totally different things. i
> see
> > > an
> > > efl api where parent is basically always used. you don't. you believe
> > > it'll be
> > > "random" or basically sometimes NULL, sometimes not.
> > >
> > > as i already mentioned in another mail. we're missing the policing of
> > > this. we
> > > should actually have eo require a non-null parent for essentially every
> > > object
> > > we have with some exceptions (like loop objects... which will be
> created
> > > for
> > > you buy efl itself anyway - but in this case the check, when it finally
> > > exists,
> > > should be disabled).
> > >
> > > at this point in time, it'd be bad to put in a forced non-null check
> > > because
> > > we're still mis-using efl's api a lot and need to clean this up so
> it's a
> > > very
> > > small number of instances to fix before enforcing. we could add ERR
> logs to
> > > non-null parents and add a lot of noise at this point... but IMHO this
> is
> > > what
> > > we should do.
> > >
> > > now what do we do if you, by accident, pass in a null parent on add? as
> > > long as
> > > it's not one of the "i allow null parents" object types (which frankly
> > > will be
> > > a handful in the end), we probably should not even begin construction
> and
> > > error
> > > log and return NULL as the object as it's invalid. but first we need
> the
> > > ability to flag objects as allowing null parents and then begin
> cleaning
> > > up our
> > > code to match.
> > >
> > > > Andy
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 at 06:32 Carsten Haitzler <ras...@rasterman.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Wed, 03 Jan 2018 09:43:16 +0000 Andrew Williams <
> > > a...@andywilliams.me>
> > > > > said:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Cedric,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think I agree, if we can tidy the definitions then everything
> > > should
> > > > > get
> > > > > > clearer.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > efl_add_ref being needed for bindings implies that our
> definition of
> > > > > > efl_add was not clean enough in the first place.
> > > > >
> > > > > we were very clear on that. for bindings it's needed (or if you
> want to
> > > > > write
> > > > > code in that style) but it's highly inconvenient and we've been
> over
> > > that.
> > > > >
> > > > > > If efl_del is "hide and unparent" then maybe what we really need
> is
> > > > > > efl_gfx_hide and efl_parent_unset - but I don't see why we need
> to
> > > > > unparent
> > > > > > anyhow...
> > > > >
> > > > > well if it's the last ref... the unparenting cleanly removes from
> the
> > > > > parent
> > > > > AND removes the last ref as a result.
> > > > >
> > > > > BUT i kind of agree with you here. the unparenting is proving to
> be a
> > > major
> > > > > pain in the rear. by that i mean the unparenting happens and then
> > > parent is
> > > > > NULL and THEN as a result of this reference goes to 0 and
> destructors
> > > get
> > > > > called. when the destructors are called, the parent is already
> NULL and
> > > > > this
> > > > > has proven an "odd" case i've been dealing with the efl loop
> work...
> > > > > because on
> > > > > destruction the object doesn't know what loop it belonged to
> anymore...
> > > > > yes -
> > > > > you have to handle parent_set to NULL then but it means this has
> to do
> > > some
> > > > > kind of destruction of loop bound resources... :(
> > > > >
> > > > > IMHO when the destructors are called the object should still have a
> > > parent
> > > > > and
> > > > > be removed from the child list as a very last "after last
> destructor is
> > > > > called"
> > > > > step, not "before destructors are called".
> > > > >
> > > > > also we need to do better parent policing.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. objects that can never have a NULL parent need to be marked as
> such
> > > > > 1.2 objects that MUST have a loop parent at the top of their parent
> > > tree or
> > > > > somewhere in it (provider_find for a loop class must fund a
> non-null
> > > loop
> > > > > object).
> > > > > 1.3 objects MUST have a loop object and it MUST be the main loop
> > > object and
> > > > > only that one.
> > > > > 2. some objects are intended to be toplevels (with NULL as the
> parent)
> > > and
> > > > > should be marked as such (e.g. loop objects).
> > > > >
> > > > > > If we are delegating to a parent to manage the lifecycle of the
> > > object
> > > > > then
> > > > > > we should step away from the reference and forget it - that is
> the
> > > most
> > > > > > "convenient" behaviour I guess.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > if:
> > > > > > efl_add *always* returned an owned reference and took no parent
> > > > > > efl_add_child *never* returned an owned reference and required a
> > > parent
> > > > > >
> > > > > > then:
> > > > > > efl_add_ref* would no longer be required right? (if the binding
> > > requires
> > > > > a
> > > > > > ref after efl_add_child we have efl_ref that it could wrap up)
> > > > > > efl_del would take a reference and dec (probably not needed as we
> > > have
> > > > > > efl_unref?)
> > > > > > efl_del_child seems unlikely to be needed as all that is left is
> > > hiding
> > > > > > which is a graphics call, not an eo lifecycle one.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The more I look at it the more I think we have too much UI
> related
> > > > > thinking
> > > > > > in our object lifecycle.
> > > > >
> > > > > that's because 90% of our objects have been UI related in the past
> sand
> > > > > pretty
> > > > > much still are. for us, i think this is the right thing.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Andy
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, 3 Jan 2018 at 05:41 Cedric Bail <ced...@ddlm.me> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The whole efl_del argument just exist because it is kinda
> poorly
> > > > > > > > named. IMO, del means: get this object to an "empty" state.
> > > > > > > > Just like close to files and hide and unparent to UI objects.
> > > efl_del
> > > > > > > > should not steal references under people who owns it, the
> object
> > > > > > > > would get deleted at a later time when everybody using the
> object
> > > > > > > > stops doing so, we could even return errors from efl_del'eted
> > > > > > > > objects for methods that do not make sense anymore, causing
> > > > > > > > most actions to, possibly, halt earlier rather than later.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So, if efl_del does not still a references under people who
> owns
> > > it,
> > > > > how
> > > > > > > do we fix it ? Should it still magically reset its parent to
> NULL
> > > when
> > > > > > > there is one and just efl_unref in the other case ? Should it
> be
> > > > > symetric
> > > > > > > to efl_add_ref and always reset the parent to NULL along with
> > > unref ?
> > > > > Or
> > > > > > > should it do none of this at all and you have to manually do
> the
> > > > > parent set
> > > > > > > and the unref ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Trying to figure out what behavior would make it work for
> binding,
> > > I
> > > > > would
> > > > > > > guess it would be best to just make it symetric to efl_add_ref.
> > > This
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > give a predictable outcome I think, but I am not sure it is
> enough.
> > > > > What do
> > > > > > > you think ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > IMO, the whole problem with efl_add/efl_add_ref is that
> > > > > > > > "parents" are treated specially, which they should not.
> > > parent_set
> > > > > > > > should increment efl_ref and parent_unset should decrement
> it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Agreed and surprised it is not the case.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > For C, OTH, where we do expect some "automatism" on resource
> > > > > > > > handling, efl_unref'ing may be too much of a hassle when a
> > > > > > > > parent is already going to handle the lifetime of the
> object. So,
> > > > > > > > it would make sense, IMO, for efl_add_scope. It could even be
> > > > > > > > that efl_add_scope is named efl_add, no problem, as long as
> > > > > > > > there's a efl_add that keeps this semantics for binding
> > > > > > > > development. Which also means that parent_set/unset must
> > > > > > > > be fixed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think that once efl_del behavior is clearly defined, the
> > > existence
> > > > > of an
> > > > > > > efl_add_scope/efl_add will also be clearer to everyone.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Also, @own tags must not relate to parent_set, because that
> > > > > > > > has no useful information for tags or users, if needed we can
> > > > > > > > add a @reparent tag, but that's not really special
> information
> > > > > > > > such as real owernship information.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am still wondering what the @own really mean. Does that mean
> > > that the
> > > > > > > object own at least one reference of it ? But in that case,
> doesn't
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > mean that the user need to always ref it, if it plans to keep
> it
> > > > > around.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As for @reparent, I am not sure we have case yet where we
> return an
> > > > > object
> > > > > > > that can not be reparented, do we have such a case ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cedric
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > ------------------
> > > > > > > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> > > > > > > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > enlightenment-devel mailing list
> > > > > > > enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> > > > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-
> devel
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > http://andywilliams.me
> > > > > > http://ajwillia.ms
> > > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > ------------------
> > > > > > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> > > > > > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > enlightenment-devel mailing list
> > > > > > enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> > > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > ------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am"
> > > --------------
> > > > > Carsten Haitzler - ras...@rasterman.com
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > http://andywilliams.me
> > > > http://ajwillia.ms
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > ------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am"
> --------------
> > > Carsten Haitzler - ras...@rasterman.com
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > ------------------
> > > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> > > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > enlightenment-devel mailing list
> > > enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
> > >
> > >
> >
> > PS: The command lines are as follows (remove the grep -v for the first
> > stats):
> >
> > git grep --color=never -E "efl_add\(.*CLASS," |grep -v EFL_UI_WIN_CLASS
> > |grep -v ECORE |sed -e 's/.*efl_add(\([^,]\+\),.*/\1/' |sort -u|wc
> > git grep --color=never -E "efl_add\(.*CLASS," |grep -v EFL_UI_WIN_CLASS
> > |grep -v ECORE |sed -e 's/.*efl_add(\([^,]\+\),.*/\1/' |wc
> >
> > git grep --color=never -E "efl_add\(.*CLASS, NULL" |grep -v
> > EFL_UI_WIN_CLASS |grep -v ECORE |sed -e 's/.*efl_add(\([^,]\+\),.*/\1/'
> > |sort -u|wc
> > git grep --color=never -E "efl_add\(.*CLASS, NULL" |grep -v
> > EFL_UI_WIN_CLASS |grep -v ECORE |sed -e 's/.*efl_add(\([^,]\+\),.*/\1/'
> |wc
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jean-Philippe André
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------
> > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> > _______________________________________________
> > enlightenment-devel mailing list
> > enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
>
>
> --
> ------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" --------------
> Carsten Haitzler - ras...@rasterman.com
>
>
--
Jean-Philippe André
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
enlightenment-devel mailing list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
