On 04/09/11 19:44, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes wrote:
> On 09-04-2011 08:58, Vlad Khorsun wrote:
>>> On 08-04-2011 13:43, alexpeshk...@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
>>>> Revision: 52693
>>>> http://firebird.svn.sourceforge.net/firebird/?rev=52693&view=rev
>>>> Author: alexpeshkoff
>>>> Date: 2011-04-08 16:43:05 +0000 (Fri, 08 Apr 2011)
>>>>
>>>> Log Message:
>>>> -----------
>>>> Use interface IBlrMessage instead passing C++ class pointer to API
>>>> interface's functions
>>>>
>>> I'm *very* against this *undiscussed* change.
>> You also against endless discucssions of every tiny code change, isn't
>> is ? :)
>>
>>> Pointer to plain struct is know to be portable and usable by the clients
>>> we expect to use our API.
I'm far not sure everything is so fine with that structure/class. Look here:
unsigned
blrLength;
const unsigned char* blr;
Pointer (8-bytes object) is placed after integer (4-bytes object). C
language has a requirement to align it on 8-bytes boundary, but what
about others? I't quite possible that some other language will try to
save memory. The result is obvious - segfault when we use such structure.
>> Plain struct ? It was declared as "class", not as "struct", sorry. If
>> you want understanding
>> from other developers, please, make you ideas clear. Else there will be such
>> "incidents".
>> Something obvious for you is not obvious for me and far not obvious for end
>> users. This is life.
>>
>> Btw, i see no problem curently. Alex made change but it is not means it
>> can't be undone if
>> necessary.
>>
> Ah, that's it. Every change I do, specially from you come this discurse
> of where the thing was discussed.
>
> But for others, no. It's just a commit that can be undone.
>
> BTW what about if I just came to whole plugin thing and just removed the
> reference counters because it was obviously wrong? Is it just a piece of
> code that was write to be undone? (at least it appears to be till now,
> cause the implementation is currently broken)
>
> And "MessageBuffer" was discussed here in this list and you had all your
> time to comment on it.
>
Adriano, from your explanations I did not understand that you plan to
pass pointer to it into interfaces. I understood it as a tool to prepare
a message (with what I see no problems), but passing pointers to
structures into interfaces is definitely wrong solution.
But I agree that 4 additional virtual calls is really unneeded (though
not dramatic) loss of performance here. To save both performance and
avoid tragic misalignment, I suggest to simply return to old format of
passing parameters as 4 independent values. This does not prevent use of
class Message (aah, name is really not ideal...) to prepare messages,
keeps interfaces in clear state and avoids possible performance issues.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xperia(TM) PLAY
It's a major breakthrough. An authentic gaming
smartphone on the nation's most reliable network.
And it wants your games.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-sfdev
Firebird-Devel mailing list, web interface at
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-devel
