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

[Nash Tsai]

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 at nostrum.com> 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
>