On May 1, 2010, at 12:41 PM, Kent wrote: > If it is a feature you'd prefer to eventually get rid of, I will not > use it. You are correct that not *everything* that is fetched do I > need a strong ref to. > > You said: >> There's no "problem" with the strong map other than its a configuration >> switch that adds to potential confusion, and when in use now demands that >> the Session be used in a very specific way, else the program's memory usage >> will grow unbounded. > > My assumption is that the strong map exists on the session object? > Further, when the session object is closed, these references are gone > and this memory will be garbage-collected, correct? > > In other words, for my understanding, or others reading the list, in a > framework where a session's life cycle only lasted as long as a web > service call, the threat of the program's memory growing unbounded is > non-existent, correct? >
correct > Kent > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sqlalchemy" group. > To post to this group, send email to sqlalch...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > sqlalchemy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sqlalchemy" group. To post to this group, send email to sqlalch...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sqlalchemy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en.
