Refcounted object semantics

My proposed patch to fix Bug 1642 is:

http://www.squid-cache.org/bugs/attachment.cgi?id=1209&action=view

The big thing that brought along this bug was the semantic change
when Duane moved the fwdstate code over to use the refcounted code.
My fledgling C++ knowledge tells me that the destructor isn't the
place to put this - there's no real explicit way to say "I really,
honestly want you to kick off the forwarding completion code *now*"
if its hiding in a refcounted destructor. Someone else could be
holding the refcount - in this instance, the ftp code was.

I'll commit the fix in a couple of minutes. Its one of those little
things which could horribly break things so I'd really appreciate
some testing and feedback. The code will log errors to cache.log
if the completed path gets called more than once for a given
connection.

Thanks!

Adrian
Received on Sat Sep 02 2006 - 03:59:12 MDT