On 03/26/2012 03:30 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-03-26 22:13, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/26/2012 03:10 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-03-26 21:49, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/26/2012 02:44 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
This would also mean that reference counting should be revisited
although with how dereferencing a parent affects the child.
It's not rocket science, but it's also something that needs to be done
carefully.
But all this is only a problem for these three here (PIT, RTC, HPET) as
their objects shall be embedded into the super-IO. If you only embed an
object pointer, it shouldn't be an issue anymore, no?
The reference counting stuff obviously needs to be looked at even in
this case.
A composite object is owned by its container. So it should go when the
container leaves.
It's more complicated than that because it's a tree, not a graph. So there may
be additional references held beyond the parent.
Also inheritance is not a problem here as we do not derive from the
three types in question. If there is a super/sub-class relation, those
need to share an internal header, of course.
Yes, but then you have two headers for every type. Is that really a
good thing?
It's cleaner and more explicit than tagging members with comments. And
it's nothing we will have for each and every type as only a small subset
is actually inheriting, the mass is finalizing.
I don't fundamentally disagree with anything you're saying here. I'm only
pointing out that (1) it's not a trivial problem and (2) it's not an urgent problem.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
Jan
