Yes, so how do you feel about deprecating it, log a bold message (once) - and then maybe remove it in one of the next versions?
Regards Carsten 2014-08-20 17:48 GMT+02:00 Justin Edelson <[email protected]>: > Hi Carsten, > I'd rather keep it, but... I don't actually see a good way to fix > SLING-3859, so it might be more expedient to deprecate this. Or at > least log a warning that the ResourceResolver must be manually closed. > > Justin > > On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Carsten Ziegeler <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Thanks Justin, > > > > so either we have to fix the memory leak or go without it :) What do you > > prefer? > > > > Regards > > Carsten > > > > > > 2014-08-20 13:52 GMT+02:00 Justin Edelson <[email protected]>: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 1:47 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 8:38 PM, Carsten Ziegeler < > [email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> >> ...I think this adaption is conceptually wrong and I have no idea why > >> we added > >> >> this in the first place, so adding this to the memory leak problem, I > >> would > >> >> simply remove this thing.... > >> > > >> > It was added by Justin for SLING-2315 - I am ok with deprecating and > >> > later removing it, but let's hear Justin. > >> > >> I find this to be of high utility when dealing with legacy code which > >> only makes a Node object available. I don't actually know that I've > >> ever used the Property adaptatation part, but I definitely use the > >> Node -> Resource adaptation a few times a year. Could I live without > >> it? Sure, especially as now that the ResourceResolverFactory code is > >> much more complex than it was at the time. > >> > >> Justin > >> > >> > > >> > -Bertrand > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Carsten Ziegeler > > Adobe Research Switzerland > > [email protected] > -- Carsten Ziegeler Adobe Research Switzerland [email protected]
