Re: [evolution-patches] 73375, changing server type -> crash

[Jeffrey Stedfast <fejj novell com>]

ah, ok, I see that now.

ok, looks like your patch is ok then, sorry for the confusion.

Jeff

On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 12:23 +0800, Not Zed wrote:
> 
> The docmentation is badly written, it is mixing the "destroy gtk
> object class virtual method" invocation, with the "destroy" signal.
> 
> The very last sentence gives a clue:
> "If catching destruction is still needed, it can be done with a signal
> connection to ::destroy."
> 
> The gtkobject code:
> 
> void
> gtk_object_destroy (GtkObject *object)
> {
>   g_return_if_fail (object != NULL);
>   g_return_if_fail (GTK_IS_OBJECT (object));
>   
>   if (!(GTK_OBJECT_FLAGS (object) & GTK_IN_DESTRUCTION))
>     g_object_run_dispose (G_OBJECT (object));
> }
> 
> static void
> gtk_object_dispose (GObject *gobject)
> {
>   GtkObject *object = GTK_OBJECT (gobject);
> 
>   /* guard against reinvocations during
>    * destruction with the GTK_IN_DESTRUCTION flag.
>    */
>   if (!(GTK_OBJECT_FLAGS (object) & GTK_IN_DESTRUCTION))
>     {
>       GTK_OBJECT_SET_FLAGS (object, GTK_IN_DESTRUCTION);
>       
>       g_signal_emit (object, object_signals[DESTROY], 0);
>       
>       GTK_OBJECT_UNSET_FLAGS (object, GTK_IN_DESTRUCTION);
>     }
> 
>   G_OBJECT_CLASS (parent_class)->dispose (gobject);
> }
> 
> 
> 
> We can't use a weak ref since we need to know when it is destroyed
> (i.e. ui representation vanishes), not finalised (object vanishes).
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 16:25 -0500, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: 
> > http://developer.gnome.org/dotplan/porting/ar01s11.html
> > 
> > The GtkObject::destroy signal can now be emitted multiple times on an
> > object.
> > 
> > On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 11:09 +0800, Not Zed wrote:
> > > 
> > > is this possible?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 10:16 -0500, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: 
> > > > if the destroy signal can be emitted multiple times now, wouldn't this
> > > > possibly unref config multiple times?
> > > > 
> > > > Jeff
> > > > 
> > > > On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 17:49 +0800, Not Zed wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > this may fix the problem, if it doesn't it does fix a problem.
> > > > > 
> > > >