Re: gstmm add element to pipeline test

[Murray Cumming <murrayc murrayc com>]

On Wed, 2007-12-05 at 23:47 -0500, José Alburquerque wrote:
> José Alburquerque wrote:
> > My question is:  When these functions are wrapped, should similar 
> > names be used for the methods (eg. Gst::Bus::add_signal_watch() for 
> > gst_bus_add_signal_watch)?
> >
> > -Jose
> >
> Hi.  For now I decided to keep the names consistent with C just to wrap 
> the functionality.  I tested what I wrapped with two versions of the ogg 
> player I submitted a few days ago.  I'm not sure about the name I chose 
> for the slot typedef and the parameter order of the methods so I'm 
> hoping you can take a look and critique what might be wrong.  To that 
> end, I'm including the patch (bus-message-02.diff) and the two versions 
> of the player.
> 
> The issue I pointed out about the Bus not being destroyed left me a bit 
> inquisitive so I tested again (by using a custom destructor for 
> Gst::Bus) and I found that for the signal version of the ogg player, the 
> bus is destroyed, however if the last line before the return in main() 
> ("bus->remove_signal_watch()") is removed, the bus is not destroyed.  
> The bus is not destroyed for the slot version of the player.  To test 
> use the "bus-message-custom-destructor.diff".  I get the feeling that 
> this is not something to be concerned about, but I wanted to point it 
> out in case it is an issue.  Thanks.

So, I have committed bus-message-02.diff. Should I add one of the .cc
files (which one?) as an example?

Thanks. And sorry that you don't yet have svn write access - I have no
control over that svn repository.

-- 
murrayc murrayc com
www.murrayc.com
www.openismus.com