On 03/09/2010, at 6:04 PM, Ben Hoskings wrote:
On 03/09/2010, at 11:52 AM, Korny Sietsma <[email protected]> wrote:
for 95% of tasks, imagemagick is overkill. But that doesn't make
it an inherently bad tool, just the wrong tool for the job.
I agree, but that's not the problem - it's the fact that it leaks
significant memory. That makes it a bad implementation IMO--because
of that issue alone, I wouldn't use rmagick.
(With the qualification that I haven't used it in a fair while;
maybe it's been fixed since then.)
While I cant vouch for it, I know that memory leaks was number one on
Tim Hunter's
priorities, and he claimed to have produced a release that was,
barring programmer
stupidity, basically free of leaks. In order to get around the issues
with the Ruby GC
not being able to see the image memory, he even provided a method to
release the
memory for an image. Now while manual release isn't exactly a 21st
century way of
going about things, it actually isn't a problem with significant
objects like images.
G*d forbid we have to remember to release every temporary string and
array, but
for images... not a problem.
That said, any kind of image manipulation is going to use memory in
substantial sized
hunks, and the fragmentation from that is going to be more severe.
Live with that, or
farm your image work out to sub-processes with a shorter life.
Clifford Heath.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby or
Rails Oceania" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rails-oceania?hl=en.
