K_GLOBAL_STATIC

[Ian Monroe]

On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 7:54 AM, Maximilian Kossick
<maximilian.kossick at googlemail.com> wrote:
> I'd have to look it up again this weekend, but as far as I remember
> destruction of static objects the way we defined them earlier happens
> at destruction of the application, and therefore is totally out of our
> control too (just like K_GLOBAL_STATICs without that qPostRoutine). If
> I remember this correctly, replacing K_GLOBAL_STATIC with our previous
> approach for singletons won't gain us anything.

The previous (perhaps not universally used) approach isn't static
objects, but just static pointers. Deconstruction could happen
precisely where we put a 'delete' statement or based on a QObject
parent.

> The whole approach is flawed anyway, what we really need is state
> management for amarok, i.e. there would be a single class that would
> control the creation of essential services on startup, and control the
> order of destruction on shutdown. This was actually proposed by Mirko
> during last year's akademy, but I never got around to writing that
> code (I haven't even finished designing it, although I still have a
> couple of attempts lying around on my laptop back home). You could do
> a couple of interesting things with that kind of state management
> (e.g. threaded startup, easy power management), so if somebody wants
> to implement that for 2.1 ...

Which sounds like a more formal way of how we did things in Amarok
previously, at least in the MMM-era.

It sounds like a neat idea, especially as a way to document all the
various systems and their dependencies for old and new Amarok devs.

Ian