On 8/6/07, Charlie Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > 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
Thats the whole reason for a fork... No one can check in... I think it's a good idea. I've been wanting to use libxml-ruby for a while for speed, but the memory leaks when modifying XML read from a source was unacceptable. Unfortunately I don't know C, so I can't assist in that area. I still think it's a good idea though. Daniel
_______________________________________________ libxml-devel mailing list libxml-devel@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/libxml-devel
