2012/4/24 Felipe Contreras :
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 4:15 AM, Austin Clements wrote:
>> Quoth Felipe Contreras on Apr 24 at ?3:45 am:
>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 2:46 AM, Ali Polatel wrote:
>>> > 2012/4/24 Felipe Contreras :
>>>
>>> >> Personally I don't see why an object, like say a query
2012/4/24 Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 4:15 AM, Austin Clements amdra...@mit.edu wrote:
Quoth Felipe Contreras on Apr 24 at 3:45 am:
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 2:46 AM, Ali Polatel a...@exherbo.org wrote:
2012/4/24 Felipe Contreras
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 4:15 AM, Austin Clements wrote:
> Quoth Felipe Contreras on Apr 24 at ?3:45 am:
>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 2:46 AM, Ali Polatel wrote:
>> > 2012/4/24 Felipe Contreras :
>>
>> >> Personally I don't see why an object, like say a query would remain
>> >> working correctly
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 2:46 AM, Ali Polatel wrote:
> 2012/4/24 Felipe Contreras :
>> Personally I don't see why an object, like say a query would remain
>> working correctly after the database is gone, either by calling
>> .close() directly, or just loosing the pointer to the original object.
2012/4/24 Felipe Contreras :
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 11:43 PM, Ali Polatel wrote:
>> 2012/4/23 Felipe Contreras :
>>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Ali Polatel wrote:
>>>
I'd rather not do this.
Please read: http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.ruby.general/320324
>>>
>>> OK,
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 11:43 PM, Ali Polatel wrote:
> 2012/4/23 Felipe Contreras :
>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Ali Polatel wrote:
>>
>>> I'd rather not do this.
>>> Please read: http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.ruby.general/320324
>>
>> OK, I've read this.. So?
>
> You are one
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 4:15 AM, Austin Clements amdra...@mit.edu wrote:
Quoth Felipe Contreras on Apr 24 at 3:45 am:
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 2:46 AM, Ali Polatel a...@exherbo.org wrote:
2012/4/24 Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com:
Personally I don't see why an object, like say a
Quoth Felipe Contreras on Apr 24 at 3:45 am:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 2:46 AM, Ali Polatel wrote:
> > 2012/4/24 Felipe Contreras :
>
> >> Personally I don't see why an object, like say a query would remain
> >> working correctly after the database is gone, either by calling
> >> .close()
2012/4/23 Felipe Contreras :
> If the Ruby code does not manually close the database, we need to make
> sure it's closed when garbage collected.
>
> In Ruby, users are not _required_ to close, the garbage collector should
> take care of that.
>
> Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras
> ---
>
If the Ruby code does not manually close the database, we need to make
sure it's closed when garbage collected.
In Ruby, users are not _required_ to close, the garbage collector should
take care of that.
Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras
---
bindings/ruby/database.c |8 +++-
1 file
If the Ruby code does not manually close the database, we need to make
sure it's closed when garbage collected.
In Ruby, users are not _required_ to close, the garbage collector should
take care of that.
Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras
---
bindings/ruby/database.c |8 +++-
1 file
If the Ruby code does not manually close the database, we need to make
sure it's closed when garbage collected.
In Ruby, users are not _required_ to close, the garbage collector should
take care of that.
Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com
---
bindings/ruby/database.c |
If the Ruby code does not manually close the database, we need to make
sure it's closed when garbage collected.
In Ruby, users are not _required_ to close, the garbage collector should
take care of that.
Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com
---
bindings/ruby/database.c |
2012/4/23 Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com:
If the Ruby code does not manually close the database, we need to make
sure it's closed when garbage collected.
In Ruby, users are not _required_ to close, the garbage collector should
take care of that.
Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Ali Polatel a...@exherbo.org wrote:
I'd rather not do this.
Please read: http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.ruby.general/320324
OK, I've read this.. So?
The order in which Ruby's garbage-collector frees the database and
other objects is irrelevant,
2012/4/23 Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Ali Polatel a...@exherbo.org wrote:
I'd rather not do this.
Please read: http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.ruby.general/320324
OK, I've read this.. So?
You are one step close to what I thought
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 11:43 PM, Ali Polatel a...@exherbo.org wrote:
2012/4/23 Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Ali Polatel a...@exherbo.org wrote:
I'd rather not do this.
Please read: http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.ruby.general/320324
2012/4/24 Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 11:43 PM, Ali Polatel a...@exherbo.org wrote:
2012/4/23 Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Ali Polatel a...@exherbo.org wrote:
I'd rather not do this.
Please read:
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 2:46 AM, Ali Polatel a...@exherbo.org wrote:
2012/4/24 Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com:
Personally I don't see why an object, like say a query would remain
working correctly after the database is gone, either by calling
.close() directly, or just loosing
Quoth Felipe Contreras on Apr 24 at 3:45 am:
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 2:46 AM, Ali Polatel a...@exherbo.org wrote:
2012/4/24 Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com:
Personally I don't see why an object, like say a query would remain
working correctly after the database is gone,
20 matches
Mail list logo
