Hey Bernd! Good to see you around. Was just talking about the memorable sprint you guys have had with Sidnei da Silva. :-)
> imho the memory consumption problem could be handled with explicit > deallocation of objects You can't deallocate the object explicitly if there is a strong reference being held in a cache dictionary. In any case, I understand the points of both of you. I think the bottom line is that we can't simply use a strong reference dictionary, and a cache implementation which holds objects only while there are other references may be suboptimal in some cases. The solution for both issues is simple: we need a slightly smarter cache implementations which is able to hold, say, the N last used objects. This is easy to implement and integrate, and is likely to be added in the near future. > that's a god point ... even though i am not sure in which use-case one > should store an object in memory which may magically change its values > without getting the object from a specific place again explicitly As an example, the following will fail, even though it must work, otherwise whenever a transaction is committed all the references to objects alive are lost. person = store.get(Person, 1) person.name = "Bob" store.commit() assert store.get(Person, 1) is person -- Gustavo Niemeyer http://niemeyer.net -- storm mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/storm
