Re: none

[Maciej Stachowiak <mjs eazel com>]

Tim Janik <timj gtk org> writes:

> 
> nope GObject shouldn't have ::destroy.
> if you need non-GUI objects that have destroy, what stops you from
> introducing:
> 
> struct _MyObject
> {
>   GObject parent_instance;
> };
> 
> struct _MyObjectClass
> {
>   GObject parent_instance;
>   
>   void (*destroy) (MyObject *obj);
> };
> 
> i think even bonobo has some kind of base object type,
> BONOBO_TYPE_OBEJCT or so? derive that from GObject and introduce
> ::destroy, it's not that hard.
>   

I don't get it. Why is it better for authors of apps and higher level
libraries to each make up their own "destroy" signal than to put it in
GObject? I think destroy notification for non-GUI objects is going to
be needed fairly frequently.

Or should we instead add GDestroyNotifyingObject?

 - Maciej