This reverts commit a57c7f7510.
I pretty much hate to just revert your revert, but you failed to read my
replies, and failed to understand what i was talking about.
And YES we talked at fosdem about the platform issue, and do you
remember my answer, that back in time this might be the case, today is
different freebsd suppoerts setenv, and for windows we have a setenv
implementation in evil. And yes, vtorri also created a issue how bad and
evil this commit is, however, i still fail to see the issue since setenv
unsetenv and clearenv usages are taken as needed. (T7693)
The ownership question is answered in
https://phab.enlightenment.org/D7516#137367.
Can we please get into a state of technical discussions, and not *oh
shit, i am going to revert this* this has been in review for a long
time, a lots of people have tested it, we discussed things on it, and
there was 3 weeks of no reply from you.
The issues that exist will be dealed with. Feel free to create tasks if
you want :)
Revert "ecore: get rid of commands in efl_task."
This reverts commit 616381e9cf.
Revert "ecore: here comes a command line object"
This reverts commit 48e5684b3c.
1. this is broken:
EOLIAN static const char*
_efl_core_command_line_command_get(const Eo *obj EINA_UNUSED, Efl_Core_Command_Line_Data *pd)
{
return eina_strdup(pd->string_command);
}
it returns a const char * BUT it duplicates it on return. no. a big
fat honking NO. return a char * or don't duplicate. pick.
2. _efl_core_command_line_command_array_set() is broken by design. it
accepts an array of strings, but the strings are owned by the caller
who creates the array (requiring they free them up themselves after
this call) but the array becomes owned by the callee. the code here frees the
incoming array but doesn't care about the string content of it. it's
leak heaven waiting to happen (or bugs when someone wants to access
the array they create to walk it to free the strings they put into it
after it is set).
i brought this up and it was dismissed. now exactly he issue i brought
up is there with mixed ownership and the added complexity as well as
transfer of some ownership but not others.
go back and think about this so it isn't broken by design.
Note that the usage in efl_thread.c should and could be removed.
the problem with its usage is that when the ARGUMENTS event is fired,
noone ever had the chance to subscribe to the loop of the thread yet. So
all in all this is unneccessary, since noone could ever touch that.
Differential Revision: https://phab.enlightenment.org/D7517
Summary:
until to today you had to call init functions and a run function which
were static function in a class called Efl.Ui.Config.
However, calling those init functions there is not really OOP style.
Right now things have changed into a manner where you are defining you
application class with inheriting from the Application /
SimpleApplication abstract.
This enables you to call launch() on your application class, calling
launch there leads to a call to the args function, you can call and use
the Efl classes in there, everything is booted up.
Option parsing and dependency start can still be done in the main method
or application constructor, just ensure that you never call any efl
class / function outside the launch function.
A commit that demonstrates the usage can be found at
ref T7204
https://git.enlightenment.org/tools/examples.git/log/?h=devs/bu5hm4n/POC
Reviewers: felipealmeida, segfaultxavi, Jaehyun_Cho, cedric
Reviewed By: segfaultxavi
Subscribers: zmike, woohyun, akanad, lauromoura, #reviewers, #committers
Tags: #efl_language_bindings
Maniphest Tasks: T7204
Differential Revision: https://phab.enlightenment.org/D7495
Marcel Hollerbach
Carsten Haitzler