rack-devel archive mirror (unofficial) https://groups.google.com/group/rack-devel
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net>
To: rack-devel@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Not cleaning up tempfiles for multipart?
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2010 16:18:34 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100308001834.GA18365@dcvr.yhbt.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f04d2211003070627i79e7368fl98e7cd947eda156@mail.gmail.com>

Charles Oliver Nutter <headius@headius.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 1:55 AM, Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net> wrote:
> > Charles Oliver Nutter <headius@headius.com> wrote:
> >> If I'm correct, this is a bug. Tempfiles should not be relied upon to
> >> clean themselves up in response to GC, since you don't know when GC
> >> will fire...
> >
> > Why not?  Tempfiles are objects, too.  It's perfectly reasonable
> > to let GC clean them up like any other object.
> >
> >
> > I don't know why RewindableInput is monkeying with Tempfile internals,
> > though.
> It's roundly considered by every programming language community in the
> world to be *really* bad form to let GC clean up IO. There's tons of
> reasons for this:

You're forgetting there are programming language communities that
consider GC to be bad form in the first place :)

Given that Ruby does have a GC, I'd prefer to be as lazy as possible and
let the runtime deal with it.

> * GC may not run as soon as you like, causing you to hold IO resources
> too long (and under heavy load, potentially use up all descriptors for
> a process)

MRI considers EMFILE/ENFILE to be analogous to ENOMEM, and would trigger
GC in that case.

> * On some systems, old objects get promoted to heaps that are only
> rarely collected, resulting in them potentially never GCing (or only
> GCing extremely rarely)

Those GCs could be made smarter about dealing with IO objects.

> * There's no reason you *shouldn't* be able to close resources when
> they're no longer used. In this case, close any files opened for a
> give request once the request has been processed (async libraries
> using those files should expect them to be closed and deal with that
> accordingly).

Of course being able to close IO objects explicitly is good.  In some
cases of socket/pipe IPC, it's the _only_ way to signal end-of-input.
HTTP/1.0 and HTTP/0.9 don't work otherwise.

> Bug-finding tools for several languages flag this sort of behavior as
> a high-priority bug. Languages like Go, C#, and Java have or are
> adding features to help guarantee you never do this. It's pretty much
> universally frowned upon.

As I understand it, C# and Java have to deal with operating/file
systems that don't work with unlinked files.  I guess JRuby is limited
to only being able to use things that work on those platforms, and can't
work with unlinked temporary files reliably, my condolences.

I haven't had a chance to look Go...

> When I tweeted about Rubyists leaving IO objects to be cleaned up or
> closed by GC, *everyone* agreed that it's a bug in the code, and that
> nobody should ever rely on GC to release File/IO resources.
> What more can I say? :)

*everyone* meaning your followers on Twitter?  I suspect your followers
on Twitter are more inclined to agree with you :)

Eric Wong

  reply	other threads:[~2010-03-08  0:18 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-03-05 14:40 Charles Oliver Nutter
2010-03-05 14:47 ` Charles Oliver Nutter
2010-03-05 14:48   ` Charles Oliver Nutter
2010-03-06 10:20   ` Hongli Lai
2010-03-07 14:25     ` Charles Oliver Nutter
2010-03-06  7:55 ` Eric Wong
2010-03-06 10:25   ` Hongli Lai
2010-03-07 14:34     ` Charles Oliver Nutter
2010-03-08  0:22       ` Eric Wong
2010-03-08  1:12         ` Eric Wong
2010-03-17 15:41           ` Charles Oliver Nutter
2010-03-18  9:54             ` Eric Wong
2014-01-06 22:45               ` Wojtek Kruszewski
2014-02-11 21:05                 ` Eric Wong
2014-03-27 21:40                   ` Lenny Marks
2010-03-07 23:53     ` Eric Wong
2010-03-08 11:26       ` Hongli Lai
2010-03-08 11:30         ` Hongli Lai
2010-03-08 14:33           ` Randy Fischer
2010-03-08 14:43           ` Charles Oliver Nutter
2010-03-08 14:49             ` James Tucker
2010-03-17  2:37           ` Eric Wong
2010-03-08 13:22         ` Charles Oliver Nutter
2010-03-08 14:42         ` James Tucker
2010-03-08 17:24           ` Hongli Lai
2010-03-09  7:43             ` Charles Oliver Nutter
2010-03-08 10:05     ` James Tucker
2010-03-07 14:27   ` Charles Oliver Nutter
2010-03-08  0:18     ` Eric Wong [this message]
2010-03-08 10:07       ` James Tucker

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-list from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

  List information: https://groups.google.com/group/rack-devel

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20100308001834.GA18365@dcvr.yhbt.net \
    --to=rack-devel@googlegroups.com \
    --subject='Re: Not cleaning up tempfiles for multipart?' \


* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

Code repositories for project(s) associated with this inbox:


This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).