From: Fabian Streitel <karottenreibe@...>
Date: 2009-08-13T02:14:15+09:00
Subject: Re: Destroying related objects doubt ... basic oop question

--001636c5b3f644bafb0470f4d6f9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> Yet another reason for steering well clear of object-relational mappers.
>
> Stick with a proper relational database and everyone knows what's going
> on, since we all worked that out 30 years ago.
>

def sarcasm
    and why don't we just write all programs in assembler again? we figured
that out
    even before relational databases! man, I wished we were back in the good
ole days...
end

The instances will,
> sooner or later, be vanished, but the database records will or will not
> depending on the relationship.


but you still don't want any dangling references. I guess you'd like the app
to run longer
than 5 minutes, so you want to get rid of stuff you don't need or else it'll
just pile up until
the RAM is loaded to the brink :-)

@ '7stud' : setting NIL to an object doesn't delete it, nor destroy it.
> I remember that in PHP I can unset(obj) that is different from NIL or
> NULL, but even though I'm not sure it will force GC
>

but if the variable you set to nil was the last reference to the object, GC
will sooner or later
get rid of it.

Greetz!

--001636c5b3f644bafb0470f4d6f9--