On Thu, 2015-07-16 at 15:11 +0100, Gordon Sim wrote: > On 07/16/2015 02:40 PM, aconway wrote: > > The fix mentioned above has this, which make no sense under > > traditional > > refcounting: > > > > pn_incref(endpoint); > > pn_decref(endpoint); > > Note that this is not added as part of my fix, it is already there. > [snip] > > The reference counting logic may not match the ideal, but we can't > postpone a fix for the current issue pending some nicer overall > solution. We can avoid it, by backing out the problematic previous > commit, or we can adjust that commit. >
+1, I'm just proposing that we get a clear statement of the intended semantics of the *existing* proton refcounting scheme into the code as it has tripped up a couple of people so far. I for one am still not very clear on it. This is not an issue for 0.10 but for longer term code health. Cheers, Alan.
