On Sunday 14 January 2018 17:49:48 Adrien LERAVAT wrote: > > 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?
> The API sounds interesting, but it's a departure of what we are used in QNAM. > What happened to the idea of using a setter on the manager, for making the > replies self-delete if wanted? (it was mentioned on the > QtCS) That had the > advantage that can be added to QNAM as well, so both can end up having a > similar API. Well it can surely solve the "forgot to delete reply" case, but as a developer, if you're not aware of the change (not the one calling the setter), the new behavior change will be far from obvious. Going from "pseudo memory leak" to "dangling pointers & crashes" if they are not careful enough. So it has the advantage to be applicable to QNAM, but doesn't really feel like a user-proof solution to me. Still it can be easily applied to QCoapClient, so if there is a consensus around it, we can go that way. Adrien Leravat Software architect, Witekio http://witekio.com _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
