Re: [reSIProcate] Shared Pointers (was Re: Fwd: [reSIProcate-commit] resiprocate 7077 nash:inside resip/stack/Transaction::process method contains complex)
I think we're talking past each other, and it's not clear that there's
anything I can say to fix that -- so, I'm bowing out of this
conversation. If anyone else cares about the topic, I'm sure they'll
offer their two cents.
/a
Nash Tsai wrote:
And thatz why I ran the tests, to make sure it's all passed, I have a
feel that the test wasn't able cover the changes I made, may I have a
suggestion how do we go about it?
Nash
On 4/18/07, Adam Roach <adam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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