svn commit: samba r23290 - in branches: SAMBA_3_0/source/nsswitch SAMBA_3_0_26/source/nsswitch

[Jeremy Allison]

On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 09:53:20AM -0400, simo wrote:
> 
> I am sorry to contradict you Jeremy, but it is not a matter of taste.
> If you alloc all array children on the array, then if you want to
> steal/move/free the array, you have to care _only_ about the array
> pointer. You don;t risk leaving behind children on the wrong context,
> and maybe have them freed while you are still keeping around the parent.

That's a very good point, and one I hadn't considered.
Thanks for setting me straight on this.

I must confess I do find the "invisible heirarchy"
of talloc extremely confusing. At least in C++
heirarchy are explicitly declared.

> talloc_steal/talloc_move are the reasons to not alloc everything on the
> generic mem_ctx, but to build memory hierarchies that reflect structure
> hierarchies :)

Indeed, but I wish there was a way to express this in
the definitions. I guess if you're careful the structure
definition can be used here, but definitions aren't
always so clear.

Jeremy.