I am not surprized or offended. It is complicated and I am typing this
all on my backberry since I cannot get at the group or gmail here at
work. I will let you know...

On 2/24/09, Stevan Little <stevan.lit...@iinteractive.com> wrote:
> Matthew,
>
> I cant possible follow what you are talking about here so I will wait
> for a runnable example.
>
> Thanks,
>
> - Stevan
>
> On Feb 24, 2009, at 1:15 PM, Matthew Persico wrote:
>
>> I am conducting some experiments with small test cases to see if I can
>> duplicate the behavior in a postable case. So far, what I have
>> discovered is this:
>> I have three modules: lth::confgi lth::mqueue and amg::continuefile.
>> Turns out that after instantiating all three, I make a method call in
>> the mqueue one that in turn calls the cpan mqueue module. That appears
>> to fail in a way that causes moose to start the demolish all sequence
>> even though I have the offending call in am eval at the highest level.
>> As a second test, I stopped using my lth::mqueue module and just did
>> the cpan calls in my main. Same behavior.
>> More experimentation to come...
>>
>> On 2/24/09, Stevan Little <stevan.lit...@iinteractive.com> wrote:
>>> It would be much easier if we could see the actual DEMOLISH sub. Also
>>> I would recommend upgrading Moose as recent fixes may have solved
>>> this.
>>>
>>> But the two destroy sequences could easily be because something is
>>> being called inside DEMOLISH that causes it to create another copy of
>>> the object, perhaps the object is stored in a lazy attribute and
>>> somehow it is being clearer first then later in the destruction
>>> process is reinitialized. Perl global destruction can produce some
>>> really weird things.
>>>
>>> - Stevan
>>>
>>> On Feb 24, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Matthew Persico wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have run some tests. In the end, I have a die() in one of my Moose
>>>> object's attribute builder function. As I trace the destruct
>>>> sequence,
>>>> it appears that ALL of my objects are being destroyed twice.
>>>> I think I will pull the die() in favor of a return undef and force
>>>> the
>>>> caller to check validity. die() in a constructor is probably bad
>>>> news.
>>>> But does anyone have any idea about running two destroy sequences?
>>>>
>>>> On 2/23/09, Stevan Little <stevan.lit...@iinteractive.com> wrote:
>>>>> Thomas,
>>>>>
>>>>> Matthew forwarded your mail, here is what I responded to him with:
>>>>>
>>>>> Try updating Moose, I think this might have been fixed recently.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perl's destruction order is essentially random, which can
>>>>> complicate
>>>>> things a lot. If you can provide a stack trace we might be able to
>>>>> provide some more insight.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Stevan
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 20, 2009, at 12:50 PM, Thomas, Terry L wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry for the possibly empty prior email with this subject.
>>>>>> Limited
>>>>>> connectivity here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am working with Moose v0.65 and I am getting messages in my logs
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> look like:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DESTROY created new reference to dead object Foo::Bar during
>>>>>> global
>>>>>> destruction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In broad terms, what am I looking for? Badly defined DEMOLISH
>>>>>> sequences?
>>>>>> Missing or present explicit destroys?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any help would be appreciated. Sorry about the terseness - limited
>>>>>> connectivity at this time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Sent from my mobile device
>>>>
>>>> Matthew O. Persico
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent from my mobile device
>>
>> Matthew O. Persico
>
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device

Matthew O. Persico

Reply via email to