Re: [bug-mailutils] Merging libraries (was Re: Mailutils 0.3

[Alain Magloire]

> 
> > I do not quite understand the answer, your are saying you do not
> > want to do this, because it is incompatible to the old way?
> 
> No, not quite so. I agree that using message_unref is a good idea
> (I'd only propose to call it message_destroy for consistency).
> What I meant is that its use should not be mandatory, i.e.
> both of the following should be allowed:
> 
>   for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
>     mailbox_get_message(mbox, &msg);
>     ...
>     message_unref(msg);
>   }
> 
> and
> 
>   for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
>     mailbox_get_message(mbox, &msg);
>     ...
>   }
> 
> The latter example will result in using more memory, however it
> will be reclaimed after calling mailbox_destroy().
> 
> In short:
> 
> 1) mailbox_get_message retrieves a pointer to the data allocated under
> mailbox_t.
> 
> 2) Calling mailbox_get_message(mbox, 2, &msg) several times is not an
> error and does not result in allocating more memory. It only
> increments the reference count associated with `msg'.
> 
> 3) Calling message_destroy(&msg) decrements the reference count. If
> the count falls to zero, it frees all allocated resources and notifies
> the owner object (mailbox_t) about the fact. Subsequent invocation of
> mailbox_get_message results in allocating new object for that message.
> 
> Does this sound reasonable?

Yes.