On Jan 29, 2005, at 10:43 AM, Theodore H.Smith wrote:
Why is passing objects across RBScript contexts, not safe?
We definitly need some way to pass objects across contexts. This gets
around much of RBScript's current crippled design.
Will RB6 have an uncrippled RBScript? In that case, we may be better
off not reinventing the wheel by working around RBScripts
crippledness.
Here's my ideas on why RBScript object passing across contexts might
be bad:
1) Different object memory system. What if we create an object in
RBScript, store a ref to it in RB, and then finish our RBScript.
Perhaps by then, all the objects will have been destroyed, but now we
have a ref to an object which was destroyed?
2) Naming collisions. What if we have two classes, which have the same
name, but different class definitions? This will obviously crash! (or
even worse, silently malfunction.)
3) Naming collisions across RBScript contexts. What if you create an
RBScript object, and pass it from one RBScript to another?
4) It opens a gaping security hole for applications.
Charles Yeomans
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives of this list here:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
|