Re: should destroying set the refcount to 0?

[Maciej Stachowiak <mjs eazel com>]

Nat Friedman <nat@helixcode.com> writes:

> The reason bonobo_object_destroy exists is that, well, it shouldn't.
> There are some cases where the proper operation of one object depends
> on the existence of another.  And so if the independent object dies,
> the dependent object should be unconditionally destroyed.  That was
> the logic anyways.
> 
> But it doesn't make sense.  Really, the dependent object should notice
> the disappearance of the independent object and behave appropriately;
> blocking attempts to use it or emitting a signal or something to let
> its user know.

I agree with you; I was looking for a way to make
bonobo_object_destroy less malignant in the meantime.

Maybe I will look into removing bonobo_object_destroy sometime.

 - Maciej