[Development] QtCoap: QNAM-like API or not

[Adrien LERAVAT]

On Sunday 14 January 2018 17:49:48 Adrien LERAVAT wrote:
> > In that case, the QCoapReply life is managed with a 
> > QSharedPointer<QCoapReply> in the request.
> > 
> > QCoapRequest does not inherit from QObject. Anyone sees a problem with 
> > this approach?

> The API sounds interesting, but it's a departure of what we are used in QNAM. 
> What happened to the idea of using a setter on the manager, for making the replies self-delete if wanted? (it was mentioned on the > QtCS) That had the advantage that can be added to QNAM as well, so both can end up having a similar API.

Well it can surely solve the "forgot to delete reply" case, but as a developer, if you're not aware of the change (not the one calling the setter), the new behavior change will be far from obvious. Going from "pseudo memory leak" to "dangling pointers & crashes" if they are not careful enough. So it has the advantage to be applicable to QNAM, but doesn't really feel like a user-proof solution to me.

Still it can be easily applied to QCoapClient, so if there is a consensus around it, we can go that way. 

Adrien Leravat
Software architect, Witekio
http://witekio.com