Alexander Larsson said: > On Mon, 2005-04-25 at 22:18 -0400, Owen Taylor wrote: >> On Tue, 2005-04-26 at 02:01 +0200, Tim Janik wrote: >> > objects kept alive purely by proxy links shouldn't be interesting >> > to language bindings, so they can drop their proxies with ref_count==1. >> >> I had that thought, but it doesn't work out ... GObjects kept alive >> only by proxy links *are* interesting. In a situation like: >> >> Language Runtime A Language Runtime B >> | | >> | | >> Other object --> Proxy A <--- GObject ---> Proxy B >> ---> <--- >> >> If we weaken the references from the GObject to the proxies, then >> Proxy B will be collected prematurely. > > Is this such a huge problem though? In this case we'll collect B > prematurely in this case. But this is what the current solution that > Gtk# uses does in this case, and that doesn't seem to hugely impact Gtk# > users. > > With your proposal you would instead never be able to collect either of > the proxies or the GObject. They will be leaked forever.
Or until one of the runtimes goes away. Imagine a Gtk# program that runs a module or plugin implemented in perl. > On the other hand, maybe leaking such shared objects isn't a huge > problem. I mean, if you're already using two language runtimes, whats a > few objects more or less... Depends on what the resource is. For non-gtk+ GObjects, artificial life support like this can cause problems (sockets that stay open too long, device resources that don't shut down, etc). -- muppet <scott at asofyet dot org> _______________________________________________ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
