http://codereview.appspot.com/3040041/diff/2001/bus/server.c File bus/server.c (right): http://codereview.appspot.com/3040041/diff/2001/bus/server.c#newcode106 bus/server.c:106: Question: isn't it better to call g_object_unref(dbus); g_object_unref(ibus); dbus = NULL; ibus = NULL; here, just in case? If so, I'll do it. http://codereview.appspot.com/3040041/diff/2001/bus/server.c#newcode108 bus/server.c:108: g_object_unref (server); Question: isn't it better to assign NULL to server here?
LGTM http://codereview.appspot.com/3040041/diff/2001/bus/server.c File bus/server.c (right): http://codereview.appspot.com/3040041/diff/2001/bus/server.c#newcode72 bus/server.c:72: g_free (guid); Maybe one parameter per line looks better. http://codereview.appspot.com/3040041/diff/2001/bus/server.c#newcode106 bus/server.c:106: On 2010/11/15 04:16:31, Yusuke Sato wrote: > Question: > isn't it better to call > > g_object_unref(dbus); > g_object_unref(ibus); > dbus = NULL; > ibus = NULL; > > here, just in case? If so, I'll do it. I think we should not call it. Because ibus and dbus are from bus_{dbus,ibus}_get_default and those functions do not transfer the ownership to caller.
fixed. submitting... http://codereview.appspot.com/3040041/diff/2001/bus/server.c File bus/server.c (right): http://codereview.appspot.com/3040041/diff/2001/bus/server.c#newcode72 bus/server.c:72: g_free (guid); On 2010/11/15 06:09:02, Shawn.P.Huang wrote: > Maybe one parameter per line looks better. Done.