|
From: Jan N. <jan...@gm...> - 2025-12-08 09:16:23
|
Op vr 5 dec 2025 om 12:09 schreef Ashok:
>Depending on what happens with 709, I won’t even bring 741 to a vote unless someone else feels the cleanup is an issue important enough to solve.
I fear that - if you bring up the vote - people will think this is an
urgent issue to
solve. It isn't. The effect - if 741 is accepted - will be that people
either are forced
even more to link in statically their extension (which they should do anyway, if
possible, so that's a good thing). The other effect will be that people move to
a forked version of Tcl, which works as expected. That's what Christian Werner
is doing. Do we really want that to happen? I don't.
I see TIP #741 as part of a game, with the sole intention of ranting
the TIP #709
implementation. Not as a serious solution which _should_ be in the core.
Sergey wrote:
> But if we speak about deletion, I'd do that in totally different way, like start special deletion child, wait there for parent process end, and only then delete them.
> Better alternative could be a reusable DLL - so creation of DLL in common temporary directory (in cross process mutex) on demand, so it'd be available for all processes of the same version/build-id and don't delete them > at all on exit. That would be a much more sane and faster solution than recreating and deleting DLLs per process every time they start.
That would be my third-best solution (after statically linking and TIP #709)
Let's see what happens.
Regards,
Jan Nijtmans
|