On 05/18/2010 12:30 PM, Vishesh Handa wrote: > 2. Don't we need to protect m_resources via a QMutex? > > > I'm currently blissfully unaware about concurrent programming. I assure > you I'm trying to learn, but till then could you take care of it?
ok, will do. > [3. Wouldn't shoudBeDeleted() make more sense in > ResourceManagerPrivate?] > > :-/ It checks if a ResourceData should be deleted. I considered making > it static but this approach had less clutter. Could you please explain > why it should be in ResourceManagerPrivate? I thought that conceptually it is the resourcemanager maintaining the resourcedata objects. So it should also be the one to decide when one has to be deleted. > As for ResourceManagerPrivate: this is just how it is done in KDE: it is > a convention to name private classes that way. You can look in KDE and > Qt code all over the place and find these private classes. Their main > purpose is to keep as much member variables and methods out of the main > class as possible to make it possible to add and remove those without > breaking binary compatibility. > > > Yea. I know. The "pimpl" idiom. :) > > I will apply the patch and test it. > > Okay. I'll do the same. > > - Vishesh Handa > > > Cheers, > Sebastian > > On 05/16/2010 04:11 PM, Vishesh Handa wrote: > > Cleaned up the code a little bit. > > - fixed a small bug in Resource::~Resource(). (my fault) > > - m_resources is now managed along with reference counting. > > - Added a function ResourceData::shouldBeDeleted() to avoid > duplication > > of code. > > > > I think the shouldBeDeleted() function should be in another patch. > > > > Btw, this code still hasn't been extensively tested. I'll do the > testing > > later on. I just though I should share the patch so that I can get > your > > comments. > > > > - Vishesh Handa > > _______________________________________________ Nepomuk mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/nepomuk
