|
From: | John W. Eaton |
Subject: | Re: Passing variables up to the GUI |
Date: | Mon, 15 Apr 2013 02:01:47 -0400 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.11) Gecko/20121122 Icedove/10.0.11 |
On 04/14/2013 06:17 PM, Michael Goffioul wrote:
We can stop the discussion here and agree to disagree. But I believe that passing octave_value objects across threads (through Qt signal/slot or whatever else mechanism) can lead to unpredictable results due to the non-thread-safe nature of refcount management. Once that problem is solved, then I fully agree that all your suggestions make sense: that is, Qt will hold a reference to the passed object until the slot execution is completed, and the emitter can safely discard its own reference.
I'm willing to reconsider enabling atomic refcount by default. But I think we should still have an option to disable it. And if it is disabled, to also disable the GUI. But I'd like to postpone any decision about this until later. My goals right now are to get a working version of the GUI release as soon as we can. It doesn't have to be perfect, but it has to be reasonably good.
I can see that the octave_link class is not always the most convenient thing to do, but it seems to be working. And I'd rather not waste time right now arguing about ways to completely redesign the way the GUI communicates with the interpreter. That will just delay the release more, and I think further delay will be worse than using an imperfect method of passing data between the interpreter and the GUI.
So can we please stop arguing about this now? jwe
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |