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

[Adam Roach]

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 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
>>