On Wed, 30.07.08 22:25, Stanley Cai (stanley.w.cai at gmail.com) wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 04:20:43PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > > > Uh? You claim the unlink hook has "not enough information"? It gets > > the pointer to the object that is unlinked itself. There cannot be > > more information than that. > No, Lennart, I meant SUBSCRIPTION_REMOVE event, _not_ unlink hook. Yes, indeed. Due to its asynchronous nature the object itself isn't there anymore. Clients which want to make use of this need to cache information of the objects on the client side while they still exist to work around this. But again, you shouldn't be using the subscription stuff anyway. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering Red Hat, Inc. lennart [at] poettering [dot] net ICQ# 11060553 http://0pointer.net/lennart/ GnuPG 0x1A015CC4
