RE: [reSIProcate] Dynamic binding to interfaces and ports
- From: "Matthias Moetje - TERASENS GmbH" <moetje@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 05:07:34 +0200
Alan,
> Sounds like a leak recipe. I think we can get away with reference
> counting the transports.
Why do you think that this is a leak recipe? I assume the current
transport handling does not expose any leaks. So regardless of a
transport's state (enabled or disabled) it should be cleaned up
some time. A transport would only be disabled in case of a
configuration change. Even if there are 10 configuration changes,
would it be a big problem to have 10 inactive transport objects?
A case of thousands or even millions of config changes is not
realistic.
Our application could perfectly live with that. Implementation of
the disabled state is independent of the reference counting approach.
If someone wants to use the disabling of transports _AND_ is
concerned of a leak he might add reference counting afterwards....
Well, that's just my opinion...
Best regards,
Matthias