This sounds a lot cleaner to me.
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 18:37:11 -0500, peter royal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Dec 16, 2004, at 10:43 AM, Paul Libbrecht wrote: > > Now... aren't we >just< missing a simple notion "run-session", passed > > between script-objects, where each TagScript could put it's tag ? > > A simple hash-table where the key is the tag-script seems to satisfy > > requirements. > > That run-session, in normal conditions, would be garbage collected at > > the end of the run(), at least. > > Basically, yes. Rather than caching tags in the TagScript, we > could/should cache them in a JellyContext. You could then discards the > JellyContext to force the Tag's to be GC'd > -pete > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- http://www.multitask.com.au/people/dion/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
