On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 12:11 AM, Brian Pontarelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Right. That's what I was referring to here: > "Therefore, if you set the pointer, forget to clear it, check into the pool > and then check out again, once the thread comes out of the pool that pointer > is still valid and if you replace it, they old value is available for GC." > > That still doesn't mean a leak unless the pointer references an object that > continues to grow and is never cleared. > Yea but it's a scoping leak which is far worse =D Dhanji. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "google-guice" 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/google-guice?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
