On Feb 22, 2015, at 7:12 AM, Marko Rauhamaa <ma...@pacujo.net> wrote:
> Cem Karan <cfkar...@gmail.com>:
>
>> On Feb 21, 2015, at 11:03 AM, Marko Rauhamaa <ma...@pacujo.net> wrote:
>>> I use callbacks all the time but haven't had any problems with strong
>>> references.
>>>
>>> I am careful to move my objects to a zombie state after they're done so
>>> they can absorb any potential loose callbacks that are lingering in the
>>> system.
>>
>> So, if I were designing a library for you, you would be willing to have
>> a 'zombie' attribute on your callback, correct? This would allow the
>> library to query its callbacks to ensure that only 'live' callbacks are
>> called. How would you handle closures?
>
> Sorry, don't understand the question.
You were saying that you move your objects into a zombie state. I assumed that
you meant you marked them in some manner (e.g., setting 'is_zombie' to True),
so that anything that has a strong reference to the object knows the object is
not supposed to be used anymore. That way, regardless of where or how many
times you've registered your object for callbacks, the library can do something
like the following (banged out in my mail application, may have typos):
"""
_CALLBACKS = []
def execute_callbacks():
global _CALLBACKS
_CALLBACKS = [x for x in _CALLBACKS if not x.is_zombie]
for x in _CALLBACKS:
x()
"""
That will lazily unregister callbacks that are in the zombie state, which will
eventually lead to their collection by the garbage collector. It won't work
for anything that you don't have a reference for (lambdas, etc.), but it should
work in a lot of cases.
Is this what you meant?
Thanks,
Cem Karan
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
