[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-pim
Subject:    Re: [Kde-pim]
From:       Ingo =?iso-8859-1?q?Kl=F6cker?= <kloecker () kde ! org>
Date:       2008-05-20 17:44:32
Message-ID: 200805201944.41241 () erwin ! ingo-kloecker ! de
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/signed)]


On Tuesday 20 May 2008, Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
> Tom Albers said the following, On 2008-05-20 09:50:
> > Op dinsdag 20 mei 2008 09:43 schreef u:
> >> Op dinsdag 20 mei 2008 09:17 schreef u:
> >>> I'd like to commit if that's acceptable - to save trouble for our
> >>> packagers.
> >>
> >> Since you haven't tested it, I will do it this evening for the
> >> socket.cpp change. Please do not commit until then.
> >>
> >> Toma
> >
> > Oh, I could not find the reason of the socket.cpp change. Can you
> > enlighten me why static is a bad idea?
>
> Because it's a static block of data in a shared library, not app. If
> you use K_GLOBAL_STATIC, you know you'll have one global instance
> with initialized members.
> See http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/2889

Apart from this the static was shared by all instances of SocketPrivate. 
I don't think this is what was intended unless SocketPrivate was a 
singleton. But even if it was a singleton then one should still have 
used a member variable for buffering the incoming data.

IOW, unless I'm missing something then using a static local variable was 
plain wrong.


Regards,
Ingo

["signature.asc" (application/pgp-signature)]

_______________________________________________
KDE PIM mailing list kde-pim@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-pim
KDE PIM home page at http://pim.kde.org/

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]