Re: [Evolution-hackers] Introspection enablement for libecal - huge changes needed?

[Matthew Barnes <mbarnes redhat com>]

On Tue, 2014-05-20 at 11:07 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> Aren't you going to run into the same problem with a GObject-based
> proxies for these libical objects? The proxies are reference-counted,
> the libical objects are not, so they may go away before their proxies
> do. This would leave the proxy with a dangling pointer or (if it somehow
> tracks the lifetime of the owner of the object) in a state where it is
> unusable.

I imagine the GObject proxies would need to hold their own copies of
libical objects and have some explicit "set" API to apply changes back
to a parent object.

It's more expensive, but that's the trade-off for thread-safety.

Matt