[gclist] Finalization and death notices
Sat, 6 Oct 2001 15:10:33 -0600
From: Marc Shapiro -- at work <email@example.com>
> || Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 14:57:45 -0500
> || From: Charles Fiterman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> || Subject: Finalization and the insane postman bug.
> || what is required is a death notice. The user is informed
> || by some mechanism that an object died. The death notice is an identifer
> || associated with the objct not the object's address. Now priority, order,
> || time and context are in the user's control. If some objects are reference
> || counted they give death notices too.
> I have been following this argument from afar. Clearly there is a need
> for some application-level cleanup mechanism when certain objects are
> collected, but finalisers are very bug-prone.
> I think I'm convinced now that finalisers are bad and death notices are
> good. A death notice is just an event posted by the system to the user
> program. It's up to the application code to pick it up at leisure. So
> it's the user's responsibility to fork threads or not, catch exceptions
> or not, and to worry about termination or not. The user gets the
> service he needs, and the system does not get compromised.
What I don't understand is why "an identifer associated with the object
not the object's address." Of what use is the identifier if you can't
the objexcts address from it?