Re: [gupnp] Re: GUPnPContext management

["Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)" <zeenix gmail com>]

Hi,

On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 11:01 PM, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)
<zeenix gmail com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Ross Burton <ross openedhand com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 15:49 +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:
>>> >    There is no hurry but would be nice to know when could you get the
>>> > time to review and merge so that I can plan my schedule next week
>>> > accordingly.
>>>
>>> I'd very much welcome to see these changes being merged. It appears that
>>> this hasn't happened yet. Is there are a particular reason for this or
>>> do you just need some more time for the review?
>>
>> Yeah, I'm just busy.  Hopefully I'll check them out this week.
>
>  Cool! When you review those changes, please keep in mind that I
> intend to add two more classes based on these changes:
> GUPnPMultiControlPoint and GUPnPMultiRootDevice (better name
> suggestion welcome) to make this further transparent to application
> developers.

  While i didn't yet get time to work on that, I realized another
issue: When a context goes away, currently the app needs to not only
get rid of the associated control point(s) but also the device and
service proxy objects using that context. The last bit complicates the
app source code and therefore I propose that we change the control
point to signal unavailability signals for all the proxy objects on
dispose. What do others think of this?

-- 
Regards,

Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)
FSF member#5124
--
To unsubscribe send a mail to gupnp+unsubscribe\@o-hand.com