Re: [evolution-patches] composer settings

[Not Zed <notzed ximian com>]

hrm i'm sure i checked that by checking the source, butmaybe its
changed, or i missed it, or i didn't.

anyway its not a leak that would ever show up/mean anything, because
you're just getting a ref to the same object.

Its not like the gonf authors could have made a more hard to use api
though.

On Wed, 2003-05-21 at 03:50, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> was probably thinking of NSS_GetDefaultCertDB() or something.
> 
> oh well, we leak everywhere. there is a fountain in the mailer.
> 
> *dances in the fountain*
> 
> Jeff
> 
> On Tue, 2003-05-20 at 14:03, Ettore Perazzoli wrote:
> > On Tue, 2003-05-20 at 13:43, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> > > er, this probably applies to the patch I just commented on a few minutes
> > > ago - but is it really necessary to g_object_unref() the gconf object? I
> > > don't think you are supposed to do that? I got the impression that
> > > gconf_client_get_default() did not return a ref'd object.
> > > 
> > > if we are supposed to unref it, I guess the mailer leaks references to
> > > it all over the place.
> > 
> > You are supposed to unref it.
> > 
> > http://developer.gnome.org/doc/API/gconf/gconf-gconfclient.html#GCONF-CLIENT-GET-DEFAULT
> > 
> >         GConfClient* gconf_client_get_default       (void);
> > 
> >         Creates a new GConfClient using the default GConfEngine.
> >         Normally this is the engine you want.
> >         
> >         Returns: a new GConfClient.
> > 
> > I don't know where you got the idea that it shouldn't be unreffed...
> > 
> > -- Ettore
> > _______________________________________________
> > Evolution-patches mailing list
> > Evolution-patches lists ximian com
> > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-patches