Re: Graphics properties as objects

[Michael Goffioul]

On 1/5/08, John W. Eaton <address@hidden> wrote:
> Is it even necessary to have the base class do reference counting
> here?
>
> Since the properties are tied to the graphics objects that contain
> them, shouldn't we only expect them to exist as long as the graphics
> object exists?
>
> If individual properties do need to exist longer than the graphics
> objects that contain them, then wouldn't it be sufficient to simply
> have a copy of the property?  Aren't most (all) of the property
> classes composed of objects that are already reference counted?  So
> copying them should be relatively cheap and since they are passed
> around by value, they should not be deleted unnecessarily?

I'm not sure I fully understand you. I agree with copying properties
instead of const-referencing. However, if you want to have a map of
all properties, how would you define it? std::map<caseless_str, XXX>?
If XXX is "property" and you don't do reference couting, you will get
a memory leak with dynamic properties (that wil only be stored in the
map). Or maybe you mean simply to disable "somehow" reference
counting for fixed properties?

Michael.