My main objection to the new implementation is the complexity
factor, it's much more prone to subtle bugs. Let's give it a try anyway.
If it works then everyone is happy, if not we can try something else.
PS: Should I try rebuilding this code on my end or were you planning to
clean up it further and cut a snapshot release?
Thank you,
Gili
Bob Lee wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 10:49 PM, Gili Tzabari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>
> This issue affects more than just Guice. Any code depending
> on Google
> Collections would potentially suffer from this memory leak while
> running
> under a web container. Look, I don't understand the reluctance. Did I
> fail to provide a good use-case? Did I say something wrong?
>
>
> My point is just that your proposal would require adding a shutdown()
> method to both the Google Collections and the Guice APIs (since Google
> Collections is an internal implementation detail). It would also
> require users to explicitly invoke this shutdown hook (which very well
> may become a no-op in some future version).
>
> Rather than add a shutdown hook, we'll just use my solution above
> which requires no API changes or servlet context hooks.
>
> Bob
>
> >
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
