On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 18:07 +0800, Not Zed wrote: > Right, well, the url never really ever changes - if it does a new store > object will be created anyway, so I don't think that should be a major > issue.
OK. Thanks a lot, jules > > On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 09:52 +0200, Jules Colding wrote: > > On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 13:58 +0800, Not Zed wrote: > > > > which is awkward, to say the least, and not really an option for > > > > distributed code. > > > > > > Well you don't need to do that anyway, you could path it in a -I thing. > > > > Sure, much better. > > > > > > Access to a locking mechanism for externally developed components is > > > > really necessary unless they should use homegrown solutions, which is > > > > not an option either I guess. > > > > > > Hmm, i'm not sure - it might depend on the particular lock. It is > > > probably possible to get away with not using any of those locks but just > > > defining your own. That's how camel-imap-* used to work, but because of > > > other problems (mainly complexity and races due to the the 4 levels of > > > interested parties, service, store, disco-store and imap-store), that > > > particular implementation was changed. > > > > Hmm... OK. > > > > I was of the impression that those particular locks in "camel-private.h" > > was of mandated use due to design issues up-source, since everybody > > seemed to use them. Well, I'll think something up myself then. > > > > > > I am really not qualified at all to hack on some way to extract the > > > > "to-be-public" parts of "camel-private.h". I would bet a really big part > > > > of my right arm that much in Evolution depend on hard to spot properties > > > > of the current implementation. > > > > > > > > Any suggestions? > > > > > > Given we are in hard code freeze, not sure; since moving it around > > > requires some macro changes, which i guess are code. > > > > > > Which locks are you trying ot access? Do you really need them? > > > Anything else in private is definitely private. > > > > I am trying to synchronize access to the url in connect() with the store > > lock. The url is really the only thing that I am currently aware of that > > I should protect (right?). The backend server is fully thread-safe so > > only locally shared resources are of any concern to me. > > > > Thanks, > > jules > > _______________________________________________ Evolution-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
