On 11/09/2011 06:43 PM, ext Jeremy Lainé wrote: > (...) > A/ static QDnsReply* QDnsReply::lookup(QDnsReply::Type, QString); > > pro: easy to connect to the QDnsReply's signal > con: it's entirely up to the user to handle deletion. Judging by your > comments above, I > doubt you favor it? > > or > > B/ static QSharedPointer<QDnsReply> QDnsReply::lookup(QDnsReply::Type, > QString); > > pro: memory ownership is explicit > con: how used are our users to manipulating QSharedPointer with respect to > signals and such?
I rather favour option B (lessons learned from QNAM), because I think option A might lead to undeleted replies, which is what we experienced in the case of QNetworkReply *QNetworkAccessmanager::get(...). We probably can mitigate the complexity introduced by QSharedPointer by having a simple example in the documentation. However if people more favour option A, that would not be a problem for me either. Peter > > Jeremy > _______________________________________________ > Development mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development -- Qt Developer Days 2011 – REGISTER NOW! October 24 – 26, Munich November 29 – December 1, San Francisco Learn more and Register at http://qt.nokia.com/qtdevdays2011 _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
