FYI, I opened a bug for this issue: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=159051 Michael Natterer <mitch@xxxxxxxx> writes: > Sven Neumann <sven@xxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Hi, >> >> I've just tried this with GIMP 2.2-pre2 from the Script-Fu console and >> you are right that the reference handling is somewhat confusing. >> Perhaps gimp_displays_reconnect() should hand the reference over to >> the display just as gimp_display_new() does. That would however mean >> that if you reconnected the display again your image would be gone >> since the last reference on it just got dropped. >> >> So I think the current behaviour is coorect but should perhaps be >> documented better. Your plug-in will have to call gimp_image_delete() >> on the new image in order to drop the reference it holds on it. >> Here's the example you gave: >> >> gint newImage = gimp_file_load (...); >> gimp_displays_reconnect (oldImage, newImage); >> gimp_image_delete (oldImage); >> >> That last line is wrong since you never owned a reference on that >> image and it is already gone at that point. It should read instead: >> >> gint newImage = gimp_file_load (...); >> gimp_displays_reconnect (oldImage, newImage); >> gimp_image_delete (newImage); > > I tend to disagree. > > IMHO we should change the PDB wrapper to > > (1) work as documented (fail if the new image already has a display). > (2) also fail if the old image has no display. > (3) make it take over the reference count on success. > > It's impossible to call gimp_image_delete() on an image which has > a display, so both above pieces of code won't work. and in > fact this is impossible to get right with the current > implementation of gimp_displays_reconnect(). > > ciao, > --mitch > _______________________________________________ > Gimp-developer mailing list > Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
