On Wed, 03 Jan 2018 09:43:16 +0000 Andrew Williams <a...@andywilliams.me> said:
> Hi Cedric, > > I think I agree, if we can tidy the definitions then everything should get > clearer. > > efl_add_ref being needed for bindings implies that our definition of > efl_add was not clean enough in the first place. we were very clear on that. for bindings it's needed (or if you want to write code in that style) but it's highly inconvenient and we've been over that. > If efl_del is "hide and unparent" then maybe what we really need is > efl_gfx_hide and efl_parent_unset - but I don't see why we need to unparent > anyhow... well if it's the last ref... the unparenting cleanly removes from the parent AND removes the last ref as a result. BUT i kind of agree with you here. the unparenting is proving to be a major pain in the rear. by that i mean the unparenting happens and then parent is NULL and THEN as a result of this reference goes to 0 and destructors get called. when the destructors are called, the parent is already NULL and this has proven an "odd" case i've been dealing with the efl loop work... because on destruction the object doesn't know what loop it belonged to anymore... yes - you have to handle parent_set to NULL then but it means this has to do some kind of destruction of loop bound resources... :( IMHO when the destructors are called the object should still have a parent and be removed from the child list as a very last "after last destructor is called" step, not "before destructors are called". also we need to do better parent policing. 1. objects that can never have a NULL parent need to be marked as such 1.2 objects that MUST have a loop parent at the top of their parent tree or somewhere in it (provider_find for a loop class must fund a non-null loop object). 1.3 objects MUST have a loop object and it MUST be the main loop object and only that one. 2. some objects are intended to be toplevels (with NULL as the parent) and should be marked as such (e.g. loop objects). > If we are delegating to a parent to manage the lifecycle of the object then > we should step away from the reference and forget it - that is the most > "convenient" behaviour I guess. > > if: > efl_add *always* returned an owned reference and took no parent > efl_add_child *never* returned an owned reference and required a parent > > then: > efl_add_ref* would no longer be required right? (if the binding requires a > ref after efl_add_child we have efl_ref that it could wrap up) > efl_del would take a reference and dec (probably not needed as we have > efl_unref?) > efl_del_child seems unlikely to be needed as all that is left is hiding > which is a graphics call, not an eo lifecycle one. > > The more I look at it the more I think we have too much UI related thinking > in our object lifecycle. that's because 90% of our objects have been UI related in the past sand pretty much still are. for us, i think this is the right thing. > Andy > > On Wed, 3 Jan 2018 at 05:41 Cedric Bail <ced...@ddlm.me> wrote: > > > > The whole efl_del argument just exist because it is kinda poorly > > > named. IMO, del means: get this object to an "empty" state. > > > Just like close to files and hide and unparent to UI objects. efl_del > > > should not steal references under people who owns it, the object > > > would get deleted at a later time when everybody using the object > > > stops doing so, we could even return errors from efl_del'eted > > > objects for methods that do not make sense anymore, causing > > > most actions to, possibly, halt earlier rather than later. > > > > So, if efl_del does not still a references under people who owns it, how > > do we fix it ? Should it still magically reset its parent to NULL when > > there is one and just efl_unref in the other case ? Should it be symetric > > to efl_add_ref and always reset the parent to NULL along with unref ? Or > > should it do none of this at all and you have to manually do the parent set > > and the unref ? > > > > Trying to figure out what behavior would make it work for binding, I would > > guess it would be best to just make it symetric to efl_add_ref. This will > > give a predictable outcome I think, but I am not sure it is enough. What do > > you think ? > > > > > IMO, the whole problem with efl_add/efl_add_ref is that > > > "parents" are treated specially, which they should not. parent_set > > > should increment efl_ref and parent_unset should decrement it. > > > > Agreed and surprised it is not the case. > > > > > For C, OTH, where we do expect some "automatism" on resource > > > handling, efl_unref'ing may be too much of a hassle when a > > > parent is already going to handle the lifetime of the object. So, > > > it would make sense, IMO, for efl_add_scope. It could even be > > > that efl_add_scope is named efl_add, no problem, as long as > > > there's a efl_add that keeps this semantics for binding > > > development. Which also means that parent_set/unset must > > > be fixed. > > > > I think that once efl_del behavior is clearly defined, the existence of an > > efl_add_scope/efl_add will also be clearer to everyone. > > > > > Also, @own tags must not relate to parent_set, because that > > > has no useful information for tags or users, if needed we can > > > add a @reparent tag, but that's not really special information > > > such as real owernship information. > > > > I am still wondering what the @own really mean. Does that mean that the > > object own at least one reference of it ? But in that case, doesn't that > > mean that the user need to always ref it, if it plans to keep it around. > > > > As for @reparent, I am not sure we have case yet where we return an object > > that can not be reparented, do we have such a case ? > > > > Cedric > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most > > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot > > _______________________________________________ > > enlightenment-devel mailing list > > enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel > > > > > -- > http://andywilliams.me > http://ajwillia.ms > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot > _______________________________________________ > enlightenment-devel mailing list > enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel > -- ------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" -------------- Carsten Haitzler - ras...@rasterman.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
