Hi all,
Before feature freeze, we wanted to challenge the current API for the CoAP
module.
It is currently similar to QNAM APIs:
\code
QCoapClient client;
QCoapReply *reply = client.get(QUrl("1.2.3.4:5683"));
connect(reply, &QCoapReply::finished, this, &MyClass::onFinished);
...
MyClass::onFinished(QCoapReply* reply)
{
qWarning() << reply->readAll();
reply->deleteLater();
}
\endcode
With the clear drawback of explicit memory management needed by users. We made
some tests with a container/RAII object for the reply, and it seems fine, but
before
moving forward in this limited timeframe, we wanted to have your feedback.
Sample below:
\code
QCoapClient client;
QCoapRequest request = client.get(QUrl("1.2.3.4:5683"));
connect(request.reply(), &QCoapReply::finished, this, &MyClass::onFinished);
...
MyClass::onFinished(const QCoapRequest &request)
{
qWarning() << request.reply()->readAll();
}
\endcode
In that case, the QCoapReply life is managed with a QSharedPointer<QCoapReply>
in the request.
QCoapRequest does not inherit from QObject. Anyone sees a problem with this
approach?
As it wasn't merged to master yet, you can access the repo from its current
submission:
https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/201311/
Thanks,
Adrien Leravat
_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
