From: Ben Gamari <bgamari.foss@gmail.com>
To: notmuch <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
Subject: Re: Rethinking *_destroy()
In-Reply-To: <87aaa0l1tc.fsf@gmail.com>
References: <87aaa0l1tc.fsf@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.7-37-g5c3c7f6 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.2.1
	(x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 18:08:22 -0400
Message-ID: <87sjnsrxrd.fsf@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Bertram Felgenhauer <bertram.felgenhauer@googlemail.com>,
	Bart Massey <bart@cs.pdx.edu>, Austin Clements <amdragon@MIT.EDU>,
	notmuch <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
Precedence: list

On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 16:22:39 -0400, Ben Gamari <bgamari.foss@gmail.com> wrote:
> I can see at least two ways of doing this,
> 
>   1) Acknowledging that we use talloc and allowing users to use
>      talloc_ref and talloc_unlink directly
> 
>   2) Wrapping talloc by adding a *_ref() and *_unref() to each object
> 
I should not that these aren't quite as trivial as they sound. As I
neglect to mention in this message, we currently use talloc_free in
*_destroy(). As of talloc-2.0, talloc_free() fails on objects with more
than one parent. When we allow library users to add their own references
to notmuch objects, this assumption will break. Sorry for the confusion,

Cheers,

- Ben