Feature req for GPGME
Robert J. Hansen
rjhansen at inav.net
Fri Sep 27 21:13:02 CEST 2002
> The Windows way :-)
I've seen it in UNIX code, too, so we can't dismiss it out of hand as
being Windowsish. I agree it's not ideal, though.
> Without accessor fucntions we won't have the ability to generate the
> data on demand, instead we have to populate the struct with all
> possible data, most of them not needed by allpications.
I'm already doing this in my C++ bindings. For a 50-key ring, creating
the keydb representation takes under a second. Haven't tried it on
> GpgmeCtx and GpgmeKey are independent. I fail to see how you approach
> is better - you also have to make sure that KS is released.
Yes, but if you don't release KS, all you have is a memory leak. If you
don't release a GpgmeKey, you're leaking a resource which shouldn't and
mustn't be leaked. But I'm an admitted paranoid about these things. :)
More information about the Gnupg-devel