On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Abdulla Kamar <[email protected]>wrote:
> I've read the discussion, however there was explicit mention of it in the > ChangeLog, hence my inquiry. > Hi, Abdulla! This is a _sorely_ missing feature in v8. Maybe if you and i keep complaining loudly enough about it, they'll eventually give us a way to force our destructors to be called. The fact that v8's performance characteristics are based solely off of Chrome's needs is, IMO, philosophically wrong. One specific app should not determine the destiny of all applications which link to v8. Believe it or not, Chrome is the minority case for v8 - it's used in many, many more applications that Chrome, but yet every single one of them suffers with this limitation because it is useful for Chrome. > It's something I would think to be important and useful. I also have Lua > bindings for my code, and it can guarantee cleanup when I destroy the > interpreter's state. > It is not only important, but CRITICAL for certain types of bound objects, e.g. database handles which must release resources cleanly. Almost all of the classes i've bound so far REQUIRE a destructor call in order for their behaviours to be well-defined. e.g. an sqlite3 database handle, a (FILE*) handle, etc. i've always got to add lots of extra code to my apps to ensure they are cleaned up. Let me reword that - BECAUSE OF CHROME i have to add lots of extra code to manage these destructions. i like Chrome, but i hate that Chrome's needs change the fate of every v8-using application out there. And i hope and pray that someday the v8 developers will recognize this fundamental design flaw and stop coupling v8 to Chrome's speed requirements. If v8's only consideration is Chrome, then it never should have been split out of the Chrome source tree. -- ----- stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ -- v8-users mailing list [email protected] http://groups.google.com/group/v8-users
