Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:31533
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain adaniels.nl from 82.94.236.173 cause and error)
Message-ID: <46BD5725.10201@adaniels.nl>
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 02:28:53 -0400
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20070604)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Nathanael D. Noblet" <nathanael@gnat.ca>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
References: <46BCEE3D.7080103@gnat.ca>
In-Reply-To: <46BCEE3D.7080103@gnat.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Pre-Destructor magic function?
From: info@adaniels.nl (Arnold Daniels)

Hi Nathanael,

If you've been watching the list you could have seen that David Wang 
(god bless his soul) is working on this at the moment. Have a look at 
http://marc.info/?l=php-dev&m=118418663902191&w=2.

You'll have to stick with your custom solution for now though.

Best regards,
Arnold


Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
> Hello,
>   I have a case where an object has a few variables, a couple of which 
> are objects which hold references back to this object.
>
> So very simply something like
>
> class A {
>   var B
> }
>
> class B {
>   var A
> }
>
> When doing something like so
>
> $obj = new A(); in a loop the object's never released from memory 
> because of the internal references it holds. __destruct is not called 
> until the end of script execution etc. Now normally in a web request 
> situation this isn't a big deal. However I'm using it in a batch and 
> loop over 22 000 records. Since re-assigning the single object I use 
> isn't freeing any memory it consumes quite a bit. I have gotten around 
> it by creating a special function in the object to manually release 
> the recursive references. However it would be nice if there were some 
> sort of 'magic' function that could be called on an object so that it 
> knows it is being deleted, sort of like a __preDestruct or something 
> like that... Is that a bad idea? Or I guess better able to handle 
> recursive references in objects would be the other way to solve it I 
> guess.
>
> Any feedback is welcome.
>