On Tue, 2014-05-20 at 11:07 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: > Aren't you going to run into the same problem with a GObject-based > proxies for these libical objects? The proxies are reference-counted, > the libical objects are not, so they may go away before their proxies > do. This would leave the proxy with a dangling pointer or (if it somehow > tracks the lifetime of the owner of the object) in a state where it is > unusable.
I imagine the GObject proxies would need to hold their own copies of libical objects and have some explicit "set" API to apply changes back to a parent object. It's more expensive, but that's the trade-off for thread-safety. Matt _______________________________________________ evolution-hackers mailing list [email protected] To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
