Chris, > I can provide patches for 2 and 3. Will put that on my list of to-dos.
Thanks. I've tried to do 2 myself allocating 15 mins for it, but then I've run into the puzzling fact that rb_newobj() has no parameter indicating the type of newly created object and gave up. Martin > > 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
