On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 08:15:28AM -0400, pvetere@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Quoting Daniel Veillard <veillard@xxxxxxxxxx>: > > >On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 11:53:09PM -0400, pvetere@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >>Hi all. So, I found a bug in the python bindings that I'd really > >>like to fix, > >>but when I sat down to do so I quickly found myself mired in a > >>swampy mess of > >>code generation: generator.py. > [snip] > > > > Historic, the same generator is used by libxml2 and libxslt at least. > > Ah, ok. So, it's just a re-use of already-existing code. That makes me > feel > better. :-) Thanks for the background info. :-) > > > > Hum, right, but really even at the C level you want to keep the connection > >around as long as you manipulate the domain. > > > > It sounds like you are suggesting that it might be better to add a > back-reference in the underlying C code instead instead of just the Python > code. Did I understand you correctly? I would let python do that by making sure domain classes have a reference to the connection class, then Python will manage the count by itself. Could you bugzilla this, so I don't forget ? Daniel -- Red Hat Virtualization group http://redhat.com/virtualization/ Daniel Veillard | virtualization library http://libvirt.org/ veillard@xxxxxxxxxx | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/