On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 01:36:00 +0100, Dan Janowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am going to go out on a limb and say, tentatively, that my new
> approach to memory management is working. It is so far only applied
> to the ruby side of tree.c functions (ruby_xml_node...). My simple
> ex
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Dan Janowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is now memory stable. The script completes using only 15MB.
Excellent.
Incidentally, now people are actively working on the wrapper again
you might want to look at my other patch which is a simple one that
fi
Tom,
This is now memory stable. The script completes using only 15MB.
On Aug 29, 2007, at 04:01, Tom Hughes wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Dan Janowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> What I need now is a few concise examples that have blown up
>> previously. I am particularly
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Dan Janowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What I need now is a few concise examples that have blown up
> previously. I am particularly looking for ones that just use the node
> operations.
Attached is roughly the test case I was using when I was working
Dan,
Here is something, not strictly memory related, that doesn't work right
now, that probably should:
class XML::Node
attr_reader :extra
attr_writer :extra
end
parent = XML::Node.new('parent')
child = XML::Node.new('child')
parent.extra = 'wibble'
parent.child = child
puts parent.extra
Sounds like great work Dan. Since this is so tricky, can you be sure to
write up what you've done? Maybe add it in as a Readme file in the
source tree, or perhaps directly as comments in the code?
Charlie
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Hi all,
I am going to go out on a limb and say, tentatively, that my new
approach to memory management is working. It is so far only applied
to the ruby side of tree.c functions (ruby_xml_node...). My simple
example of creating the same document 1M times, loosing references to
the priors a
