On 22 September 2012 01:01, Kevin Ollivier <kev...@theolliviers.com> wrote:
> On Sep 21, 2012, at 4:11 PM, Peter Williams wrote:
> I don't really think there is much point in continuing these discussions. Bottom
> line: You and/or Sam submit a patch and prove how little we understand. What
> people here have been trying to do with our 'negativity' is to help you guys
> understand the issues involved with creating wrappers so that we can all come
> to the best solution here. However, the response to our attempts has
> consistently been that we don't know what the heck we're talking about and that
> wrappers like this are all a very simple business indeed. Every attempt to explain
> that mixing two memory management paradigms requires some care and
> occasionally some compromise has been met with replies of 'excuses', 'rubbish',
Peter and I are not on one side, and the whole wx community on the
other here as you suggest.
I am suggesting that I can provide a patch for a specific problem -
that is a crash caused when destroy takes place on a window which has
an active event handler. The negativity I experienced was "you can't
fix it, and even if you can we won't accept it". Which I found rather
frustrating, as I was not saying "this is broke you need to fix it"
but "this is broke and I will try to fix it". If my company wasn't so
reliant on wx then at that point I would have been tempted to walk
away at that point.
My 'excuse, not a solution' comment was in response to your assertion
that Destroy may crash, that's obvious because it's a C++ extension
and C++ crashes some times, and it seemed to me that you were
advocating that it was ok for it to crash. When I was actively trying
to find a solution to prevent that crash.
On the other hand, Peter is suggesting that the entire model of
handling memory management is wrong in wx. I actually think he is
probably right, but I think that he is wrong that it can be fixed
easily in the swig layer. To fix that would require some major
modifications to the whole wx model and I think it would be extremely
difficult to do, though I do hope to try one day if no-one else does.
> So, if you're really right, you should easily be able to fix the issue once and for all with
I am not so naive to think that I can make it unable to segfault. But
> a patch that will make wxPython unable to segfault, and not introduce any bugs or
> regressions in the process. I'd love to see that. If one or perhaps both of you guys
> can come up with such a patch, it will certainly improve the wx project, and will
> almost certainly be accepted, again provided it does not introduce any bugs or
> regressions. I personally don't mind being wrong, if the project benefits. :)
I must try to make it less likely to segfault if I can.
It is however good to hear that you have changed your mind and will
consider accepting a patch.