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