On 6-Jan-07, at 3:15 PM, Frank Condello wrote
On 6-Jan-07, at 10:03 AM, Karen wrote:
On Jan 6, 2007, at 9:51 AM, Charles Yeomans wrote:
On Jan 6, 2007, at 5:08 AM, Peter Bozek wrote:
On 1/6/07, Charles Yeomans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Storing a reference to parentObject in the dictionary simply moves
the problem. You still need to delete that last reference
yourself.
But if the dictionary is garbage collected?
If the dictionary is destroyed, then, yes, the reference counts
of objects to which it contains references will be decremented.
So for a tree if you put code in a node's destructor to Nil the
dictionary if the object has no parent, it could be automated?
For most trees you can forget about the dictionary and just
strategically lock and unlock the parent references. It limits how
you interface with the tree structure and things can still explode
if you haven't accounted for every situation, but it's workable for
certain applications. I recently refactored my scene graph to be
more strict, so I might actually be able to get away with this now
- needs more thought...
Thanks to those who kept this topic going and the brain juices
flowing, I now have a tree structure with cyclical refs that cleans
up after itself :) I'll be back to bitch when stuff explodes, but for
right now it's working nicely.
Frank.
<http://developer.chaoticbox.com/>
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives of this list here:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
