Olivier Sannier wrote: > Arno Garrels wrote: >> Olivier Sannier wrote: >> >>> Arno Garrels wrote: >>> >>>> Olivier Sannier wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Assert(Assigned(GWndHandlerPool), 'GWndHandlerPool is already nil, >>>>> check your threads!!!'); >>>>> >>>>> >>>> I just wonder whether we shouldn't check "not GUnitFinalized" >>>> rather than "Assigned(GWndHandlerPool)", what do you think? >>>> >>> No we should not as it would go against the whole concept of the >>> proposed patch. >>> The basic idea is that it is quite easy to get the situation where >>> the unit is finalized but sockets are still connected and working. >>> So the >>> patch allows to continue working in this situation without any >>> crash, letting either the finalization section or the last socket >>> (whichever comes last) to destroy the global handle pool. >>> >> >> Assert(not GUnitFinalized..) would not change this goal, it just >> would throw an error (earlier) in cases when a thread tries to >> create new sockets even though finalization has been passed and >> GWndHandlerPool is not yet nil. I do not understand why you want a >> thread being able to create new sockets in this situation? > Well, you are quite right, I just felt it would be "cleaner" to assert > on the very element that would trigger an access violation two lines > below. I thought it would be clearer for users why we test on > GWndHandlerPool rather than testing on GUnitFinalized.
I prefer the test on not GUnitFinalized but I can live with both, I never run into this problem since I close all threads before I terminate the application. So let's the boss decide, strange that he did not reply so far. -- Arno > > Cheers > Olivier -- To unsubscribe or change your settings for TWSocket mailing list please goto http://lists.elists.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twsocket Visit our website at http://www.overbyte.be
