glib bindings and memory management
hp at redhat.com
Wed May 4 13:37:12 PDT 2005
On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 15:21 -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 13:04 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> > Maybe a general goal is consistency with the gtk introspection stuff,
> > i.e. if a given IDL would map to a given C function in the new
> > introspection stuff, it should be the same in the dbus case?
> I'm a bit confused how this relates to the memory management issue. Can
> you elaborate? Are you saying that e.g. we could use introspection to
> find destructors for return value parameters for server-side method
> invocation? That would probably makes sense, but it still leaves us
> with the problem of client-side return values.
I don't know if it relates to memory management but it probably relates
to what the function signatures look like (which types we use)
I think that probably impacts memory management, though. i.e. each type
has memory management implications.
More information about the dbus