Re: [C++] Does ComponentType constructor need Composite* ?

2006-10-06 Thread Jean-Sebastien Delfino
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote: Pete Robbins wrote: Yes it does help! I need to go and read the Assembly spec again ;0) But for now I think the change I put in is fine. Cheers, Pete, I thought that your change was OK too, but I just rebuilt everything after updating from SVN and

Re: [C++] Does ComponentType constructor need Composite* ?

2006-10-06 Thread Pete Robbins
I think we should revert that change I made then but it would be nice to get it to compile on windows ;-) I'm still not happy with Composite constructor passing it's this pointer to it's parent ComponentType. Is this not wrong? Is it saying I am a Composite and I am contained in myself?? In

Re: [C++] Does ComponentType constructor need Composite* ?

2006-10-06 Thread Jean-Sebastien Delfino
Pete Robbins wrote: I think we should revert that change I made then but it would be nice to get it to compile on windows ;-) I'm still not happy with Composite constructor passing it's this pointer to it's parent ComponentType. Is this not wrong? Is it saying I am a Composite and I am

Re: [C++] Does ComponentType constructor need Composite* ?

2006-10-06 Thread Jean-Sebastien Delfino
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote: Pete Robbins wrote: I think we should revert that change I made then but it would be nice to get it to compile on windows ;-) I'm still not happy with Composite constructor passing it's this pointer to it's parent ComponentType. Is this not wrong? Is it saying

Re: [C++] Does ComponentType constructor need Composite* ?

2006-10-06 Thread Pete Robbins
OK, I'll revert the change. Is there an easy way to do that in svn? Cheers, On 06/10/06, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote: Pete Robbins wrote: I think we should revert that change I made then but it would be nice to get it to compile on

Re: [C++] Does ComponentType constructor need Composite* ?

2006-10-06 Thread Pete Robbins
On 06/10/06, Pete Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK, I'll revert the change. Is there an easy way to do that in svn? Cheers, Yes there is using TortoiseSVN ;-) -- Pete

Re: [C++] Does ComponentType constructor need Composite* ?

2006-10-06 Thread Pete Robbins
OK... change made in 798 is backed out and CompositeConstructor passes 0 to it's parent ComponentType. Ruby builds fine now. Cheers, On 06/10/06, Pete Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 06/10/06, Pete Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK, I'll revert the change. Is there an easy way to

[C++] Does ComponentType constructor need Composite* ?

2006-10-05 Thread Pete Robbins
I think it does not. I raised TUSCANY-798 as I was getting a windows compile warning when Composite constructor was passing it's this pointer to the ComponentType constructor. ComponentType saves away the pointer to a Composite but never uses it, nor is the getComposite() method ever called. My

Re: [C++] Does ComponentType constructor need Composite* ?

2006-10-05 Thread Pete Robbins
I attached a patch of my proposed fix to the Jira On 05/10/06, Pete Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think it does not. I raised TUSCANY-798 as I was getting a windows compile warning when Composite constructor was passing it's this pointer to the ComponentType constructor. ComponentType

Re: [C++] Does ComponentType constructor need Composite* ?

2006-10-05 Thread Andrew Borley
I tested the patch briefly on windows/VC7 - everything builds fine and the Calculator sample is happy. Cheers Andy On 10/5/06, Pete Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I attached a patch of my proposed fix to the Jira On 05/10/06, Pete Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think it does not. I

Re: [C++] Does ComponentType constructor need Composite* ?

2006-10-05 Thread Jean-Sebastien Delfino
Andrew Borley wrote: I tested the patch briefly on windows/VC7 - everything builds fine and the Calculator sample is happy. Cheers Andy On 10/5/06, Pete Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I attached a patch of my proposed fix to the Jira On 05/10/06, Pete Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I

Re: [C++] Does ComponentType constructor need Composite* ?

2006-10-05 Thread Pete Robbins
On 05/10/06, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I thought that a ComponentType would need to know the composite it lives in, to reflect interfaces, or use complex data types for properties, which are currently packaged with a composite. But in the model Composite is a

Re: [C++] Does ComponentType constructor need Composite* ?

2006-10-05 Thread Jean-Sebastien Delfino
Pete Robbins wrote: On 05/10/06, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I thought that a ComponentType would need to know the composite it lives in, to reflect interfaces, or use complex data types for properties, which are currently packaged with a composite. But in the model

Re: [C++] Does ComponentType constructor need Composite* ?

2006-10-05 Thread Pete Robbins
Yes it does help! I need to go and read the Assembly spec again ;0) But for now I think the change I put in is fine. Cheers, On 05/10/06, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pete Robbins wrote: On 05/10/06, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I thought that a

Re: [C++] Does ComponentType constructor need Composite* ?

2006-10-05 Thread Jean-Sebastien Delfino
Pete Robbins wrote: Yes it does help! I need to go and read the Assembly spec again ;0) But for now I think the change I put in is fine. Cheers, Pete, I thought that your change was OK too, but I just rebuilt everything after updating from SVN and unfortunately this change breaks the Ruby