Re: [reSIProcate] Shared Pointers (was Re: Fwd: [reSIProcate-commit] resiprocate 7077 nash:inside resip/stack/Transaction::process method contains complex)

[Adam Roach <adam@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Nash Tsai wrote:
> Hi Adam,
>  
> That was very nice explaination, I took consideration of that when I 
> altering the codes, as I DO KNOW how to use smart pointer, and that's 
> why it wasn't just the TransactionState.cxx got changed.
>  

Thanks. To be clear, I took note of the nature of the changes you made 
-- and I have no issue with their technical correctness. You did a good 
job with the conversion. My concern relates to what might happen when 
some non-Nash person somewhere makes changes to the code in the future. 
I have real-life experience that tells me that things can and likely 
will go wrong. Based on Ryan's note, it sounds like I'm not the only 
person who has reached this conclusion.

/a