I think I will just revert the "singleton" patch for now and we can ask permission to use this from Caolan.
I will leave the bugzilla issues open: its nice to know about the underlying bugs. Pedro. --- On Tue, 11/8/11, eric b <eric.bach...@free.fr> wrote: > From: eric b <eric.bach...@free.fr> > Subject: Re: [CODE] issue 118576: Crash on close > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org > Date: Tuesday, November 8, 2011, 7:02 AM > Hi Andre, > > Le 8 nov. 11 à 11:21, Andre Fischer a écrit : > > > > > > > On 07.11.2011 12:25, Pedro Giffuni wrote: > >> I agree with everyone :). > >> > >> Right now it doesnt make sense to spend time on > this, however if Erics patch avoids the crash for now it > >> would be an acceptable solution. > >> > >> I would like a bugzilla issue that we can keep > open so that we dont forget about the underlying issues, > >> maybe 118576 serves that purpose already. > > > > I agree. > > > > What is the status of Erics patch? > > > Pending. See below. > > > > Does it work > > > I'd say yes. No more crash nor alien message on my Windows > (XP), and on Mac OS X, but I need other feedback, on other > OSs too. > > Waiting for confirmation. > > > > and can it be applied under the Apache license? > > > > Honestly : I don't know (and I'm serious): in the case it > will be commited, the point is to keep Caolan as original > other of the good idea (use boost shared_ptrs), and to > recognize his merit (debug such code is difficult and > boring). > > More precisely : I created the patch manually, because > Caolan one did not apply. The first reason why, was that LO > code and OpenOffice.org seem to be divergent : in LO there > is a new added class and methods (Factory) + other > deep changes who have been made in cppuhelper, and we do not > have that in OOo (if I didn't miss anything). Second, some > cosmetic changes caused some hunks to fail. > > I know my patch is very close to Caolan patch, and I don't > know what we can do with that : in the case we can commit > it, we will anyway mention Caolan as the orignal autohr of > the fix, e.g. providing the fdo issue entry (where the > initial patch stands) ? > > > Last but not least, I think my patch does fix the crash, > but as you wrote (and I completely agree), the WHAT is > fixed, but not the WHY. That's why I'd prefer use on a more > accurate/precise solution (like the one you proposed). > > Oh, I forgot : another big issue around, is that we can no > longer extract all the changes made when the new > configmanager was added (would help to see what is exactly > concerned in the code). Or maybe is there an existing full > diff somewhere ? (was sb111 or something like that) > > > Regards, > Eric > > --qɔᴉɹə > Projet OOo4Kids : http://wiki.ooo4kids.org/index.php/Main_Page > L'association EducOOo : http://www.educoo.org > Blog : http://eric.bachard.org/news > > > > > >
