Based on the fact that we didn't have that for a very long time, and I don't think that we felt any pain.
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 2:31 PM, hammett <[email protected]> wrote: > > Based on what? Feeling, intuition? > > > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Ayende Rahien <[email protected]> wrote: > > There is also another issue. > > The right & deterministic behavior is usually not required. > > > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Victor Kornov <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> I don't want to make trade offs ;) > >> What I'm trying to say is this right & deterministic behavior leads to > >> unexpected, not obvious & mostly undiscovered by devs issues like memory > >> leaks. > >> Isn't there a way not to educate everyone on your way of doing things, > but > >> to slap them in the face when they do it wrong? ;) > >> On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 12:36 AM, hammett <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> The question is: will you trade off the consequences of not calling > >>> Dispose on your parts of your object graph that are disposable by not > >>> having to invoke Release on the container? > >>> > >>> If yes, then simply change the tracking policy. You dont need to do > >>> the house keeping that you're doing.. > >>> > >>> By default I believe the current behavior goes towards the correct and > >>> expected deterministic behavior. > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Castle Project Development List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
