sebb wrote on 06/10/2011 11:26:27 AM:
> On 9 June 2011 17:51, Newman, John W wrote:
> > Thanks Michael. That?s the response I?ve been waiting for. This whole
> > situation is really unfortunate, since it?s not even my code that is
missing
> > the required locking, and the developers of that f
On 9 June 2011 17:51, Newman, John W wrote:
> Thanks Michael. That’s the response I’ve been waiting for. This whole
> situation is really unfortunate, since it’s not even my code that is missing
> the required locking, and the developers of that faulting code have pretty
> decent justification f
Hi John,
"Newman, John W" wrote on 06/09/2011 12:56:07 PM:
> Also you explicitly put the ?deferred implementation? words in your
> response. Are you speculating that the non-deferred implementation
> would likely not suffer this problem of the reference count?
The non-deferred implementation
Hi John,
"Newman, John W" wrote on 06/09/2011 12:51:32 PM:
> Thanks Michael. That?s the response I?ve been waiting for. This
> whole situation is really unfortunate, since it?s not even my code
> that is missing the required locking, and the developers of that
> faulting code have pretty dece
