Not so chicken and egg if, through reflection, a ReflectionClass object could inform all the instances of that class in a simple array or with an iterator. May be there's another even better place where to implement such a functionality, i'm just pointing reflection because i think it's natural that a class should know what instances of itself are around there.
Regards Leo On Tuesday 10 May 2005 13:10, Wez Furlong wrote: > Chicken and egg; you can't keep the object alive without a reference. > There is no way to achieve what you want, and we're not going to > change the behaviour of the new operator, nor are we going to build > some kind of singleton factory thingy into the core language; you have > the tools to do it "the right way", please use them and kill these two > threads. > > --Wez. > > On 5/10/05, Leonardo Pedretti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yes, the question was pointed in another way, the destructors are not > > called until the last reference to an object has been removed, but if you > > store a reference in an array so you lately return a reference to the > > already loaded instance instead of creating an aliasing of that instance, > > then you get the undesirable behavior that the object is never destroyed > > until the script ends, because there is always a reference in that array > > and you can not check when references are removed in any way. > > And leaving the array growing while each object that exists in a huge > > database is slowly loaded and never unloaded, is not an option. > > > > Leo > > > > On Tuesday 10 May 2005 11:26, you wrote: > > > Leonardo Pedretti wrote: > > > > It would not be such a problem to write something that does the same > > > > task through a static or global function, but unfortunately it is > > > > impossible, due to the following: you can build a cache in an array, > > > > then in a __new() function you could check if the requested object is > > > > already loaded and return a reference. However, if this is the case, > > > > objects that enter the cache never leave it because they are still > > > > referenced in the array when all other references have gone, so they > > > > never destruct, except when the array is destroyed at program's end. > > > > > > PHP5 has destructors ... > > > > > > regards, > > > Lukas > > > > -- > > > > Leonardo Pedretti > > Axon Sistemas > > Líder de Equipo Proyecto Basalto > > > > -- > > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php -- Leonardo Pedretti Axon Sistemas Líder de Equipo Proyecto Basalto -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
