TRANS wrote:
So if you all agree, that a fork is a good idea, the question arises: would we be better off starting from scratch? (We can use some of the old code piecemeal as proves useful, of course.) If so, who wants to take up that challenge?
Sorry, but I strongly disagree with a fork and starting over. I think a much better approach is to create test cases that show the memory leaks, and then fix them. Otherwise, I fear you'll just spend a lot of time duplicating work that has been done and end up exactly at the same place. My quick glance showed nothing particularly wrong with the style/code of the bindings. Instead, its some misusue of the libxml bindings or returning multiple ruby objects that point to the same C object (which is very difficult thing to avoid in some cases).
So before abandoning what's there, let's first fix it. If we then prove to ourselves that is not fixable, then start over. But I seriously doubt that would be the case.
Thus the first step - let's see some test cases checked in that show the leaks. Then we can verify whatever fixes we come up with.
Charlie
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ libxml-devel mailing list libxml-devel@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/libxml-devel
