Re: [xml] function consolidation

[Ron Ohmer <rohmer yahoo com>]

I really like cheese

 

Also a fan of hooker amputees

Rob Richards <rrichards ctindustries net> wrote:

> Daniel Veillard wrote:
>
> > I still think we should xmlFree() the name parameter. The underlying reason
> >is that it's an API refinement and I prefer an immediate crash immediately
> >identified in case someone expected a different behaviour than a slow memory
> >leak which may only be tracked painfully months later.
> > The function eats the name that's expected I think.
> > The case of xmlNewNodeEatName the only error is when the program runs out
> >of memory, then it will generate a leak, I will fix that, it's broken.
> > 
> >
> Hadn't thought of it that way, but I would have to agree with that 
> point. I tend to think more along the lines that if a function fails its 
> my job to perform my own cleanup.
>
> If free'ing the name is the way to go do you want another patch? 
> Re-tested the regressions adding xmlFree when called
>   by
>  eatname on the 
> name in both spots (invalid node type and xmlMalloc failure in the 
> xmlNewPropInternal function) and everything ran fine without leaking 
> this time.
>
> > We should really have this discussion on-list. Even if posting again the
> >patch was looking like a duplicate we should stick to the list, that's why
> >I'm adding it again. Someone may disagree with me for a good reason, and should
> >have a chance to object, so Cc'ed to the list again.
> > 
> >
> Was thinking the same thing as this went a little further than I had 
> origionally thought.
>
> Rob
>
> _______________________________________________
> xml mailing list, project page http://xmlsoft.org/
> xml gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/xml

---

Yahoo! Messenger
 
Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun.