On 12/06/12 10:00, Cedric BAIL wrote: > Why would he ? Seriously, nobody should refcount the child of Edje. If > someone does that bad things are going to happen, like this child > could be an external and trigger event in a dead parent for example. > So refcounting the Edje object is fine, referencing its child is > calling for wrong things to happen. >
It's a smart child, this means evas smart also has ownership of it and it can do whatever it wants. In my case it just refs, calls edje and unrefs (which is a very fair use) and that's completely legal. But even assuming my usage is not good, this code will currently cause an infinite loop on such a case, which is bad. Why the hell should we assume that an object will be deleted there, and that a callback will be called and that the callback will delete the object from the edje list? Of course it works, because it's like that at the moment, but that just feels way too fragile and full of assumptions. -- Tom. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
