From: Eric Wong <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.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: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Charles Oliver Nutter <email@example.com> wrote: > On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 1:55 AM, Eric Wong <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > Charles Oliver Nutter <email@example.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
next prev parent 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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style 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 \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --subject='Re: Not cleaning up tempfiles for multipart?' \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * 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: https://80x24.org/mirrors/rack.git 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).