----- Original Message ----- From: "Elizabeth Mattijsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "K Stol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Michael G Schwern" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 3:10 AM Subject: Re: What the heck is: timely destruction
> At 11:56 -0700 8/18/03, K Stol wrote: > >Uhm, I didn't realize destructor methods were called, but now I see that's > >the whole point: > >destructor methods should be called when doing timely destruction. > >You already said just now: > > > >> This doesn't necessarily mean that their memory has to be freed but that > >> at least their destructor methods are called. > > > >So the objects may be still in memory. I thought the fact that they are > >still in memory > >was troublesome, but it's not, if I interpret your statement well. > > No, the fact that a destructor method e.g. breaks the connection with > a database server (that has a limited number of simultaneous > connections) and is not called immediately and thus hogs resources > that should be freed, is usually the problem. That somethiing that > is known not to be in use anymore, is still in memory, is not a > problem as it will be reclaimed automatically whenever more memory is > needed. > > Thanks for all your *fast* reactions. The problem is clear now. It seems that these tasks of the GC system are quite independent: calling destructors (doing clean-up tasks) and the actual freeing the memory. > Liz > Klaas-Jan
