MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To:
 <CADv3eywAvyMuh3vWLwyuf0Ui_kskwp9875pGxCR1GTm7deN9Pg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1335185032-13075-1-git-send-email-felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
	<CADv3eywAvyMuh3vWLwyuf0Ui_kskwp9875pGxCR1GTm7deN9Pg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 18:07:23 +0300
Message-ID:
 <CAMP44s3SyU4WVV0_McHWseNL=jmMnAXO2EdZK4Xk-wrCHPVD8A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ruby: make sure the database is closed
From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
To: Ali Polatel <alip@exherbo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Precedence: list

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Ali Polatel <alip@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, because with this patch we are not
manually freeing other objects, only the database.

Sure, it's _better_ if the user calls close(), even better if it's
inside an 'ensure', and even better if blocks are used (which I am
using in most cases), but that's not *required*.

The user might just do:

def foo
  db = Notmuch::Database.new($db_name, :mode => Notmuch::MODE_READ_WRITE)
end

That's perfectly fine in Ruby (although not ideal), since 'db' will
get garbage-collected. But nobody will be able to use the database
again until that process is killed.

You think that's correct?

-- 
Felipe Contreras