David Bremner <da...@tethera.net> writes:

> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contre...@gmail.com> writes:
>> We basically steal all the objects from their notmuch parents, therefore
>> they are completely under Ruby's gc control.
>> The order at which these objects are freed does not matter any more,
>> because destroying the database does not destroy all the children
>> objects, since they belong to Ruby now.
> I guess from a purist point of view this is a kind of layering
> violation, since the use of talloc is purportedly an internal
> implementation detail of the library. Still, I think it's a reasonable
> approach given that the ruby bindings are maintained as part of notmuch,
> and we are not very likely to abandon talloc.

One issue to double check: in a few places we explicitely _don't_ use
talloc. What happens when those objects are passed to talloc_steal?

notmuch mailing list -- notmuch@notmuchmail.org
To unsubscribe send an email to notmuch-le...@notmuchmail.org

Reply via email to