Hi Marin, I can provide patches for 2 and 3. Will put that on my list of to-dos.
Chris On Mar 2, 2010, at 2:27 AM, Martin Sustrik wrote: > Chris Wong wrote: > >> 2. I prefer option 2. >> >> ctxt = ZMQ::Context.new sock = ctxt.socket(ZMQ::PUB) > > Yes. It looks like everybody prefers it this way. > >> I'm developing a Ruby wrapper on top of rbzmq for more convenient >> usage in Ruby. When it's in a usable state, I'll post it here. > > Great! > >> 3. Ruby, like any GC based languages, needs explicit >> close/term/disconnect methods for cleaning up resources used. Even >> for C++, I'd argue that it's better to avoid relying on destructor >> 100% for implicit resource cleanup. It's especially true in Java, >> the finalizer is not guaranteed to be called upon process termination >> AFAIK and it's unpredictable when it'd get called. (Not saying that >> Java's finalizer is the same as C++ destructor.) > > Ok. Point taken. Would you like to patch 2 & 3 yourself? > > Martin > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
