Regestry depreciated Code and none threadsave code

[Peter Kovacs <le...@gmail.com>]

Hello all,


I look at the headerfiles main/registry/inc/registry on trunc (not 
updated for a week or two).

    -> reader.hxx -> comment states not threadsave.

    -> writer.h and writer.hxx -> both again are not thread save.

Are we sure that the registry is only written in a non multithread 
level? If not we have to make them thread save.

I would plead for thread safety independently if we need it or not. I 
personly do not like the naked mutex constructs used on the code, 
because they are difficult to use.

I suggest to use Locking semantics in Object Oriented Programming 
(Modern C++ design, Andrei Alexandresu, 2009).


    -> relfread.hxx -> active but depreciated code, only a comment says
    that instead of this code we should use the non thread save reader.

    -> refltype.hxx -> has a depreciated comment that refers to an old
    UNO Model. (<3.2.0)

    -> reflwrite.hxx -> depreciated code...

Depreciated Code. Should be removed.


What I would like to raise the 2 issues in Bugzilla. Are there any 
objections, or is this something already documented?

Havent Found anything in Bugzilla. I am sure I forget because I am just 
half way through my first code review and I am actually looking for 
something else at the moment.

I would go for a change after my review. Maybe if it is okay I put more 
such stuff in.


all the best

Peter