On Tuesday 20 May 2008 20:46, bbackde at googlemail.com wrote: > Uh? You have to mark in-memory objects as unused to get rid of them?
No, on-disk ones. Because db4o is query-oriented, it doesn't know what objects you want and what you don't. > > On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 9:40 PM, Matthew Toseland > <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote: > > On Monday 19 May 2008 15:24, Matthew Toseland wrote: > >> > >> Generally speaking Perst is significantly lower level than db4o. This isn't > >> necessarily a bad thing, it allows fine control and possibly better > >> performance... For example, all persistent objects in Perst must extend > >> Persistent (1 pointer 2 ints overhead), or implement IPersistent (which > >> involves copying code from Persistent)... or implement IValue, which allows > >> an inline value to be stored with the parent object, or java serialization > >> (but in that case the object must not refer to any persistent objects). > > > > Actually, Perst is significantly higher level than db4o in one important > > respect: it has garbage collection. In db4o you have to explicitly delete > > everything. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080520/241cc2fa/attachment.pgp>
