Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 102545
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 11, 20262026-05-11T00:58:57+00:00 2026-05-11T00:58:57+00:00

I keep a cache of transactions to flush (to persistent storage) on the event

  • 0

I keep a cache of transactions to flush (to persistent storage) on the event of a watermark or object finalization. Since __del__ is no longer guaranteed to be called on every object, is the appropriate approach to hook a similar function (or __del__ itself) into atexit.register (during initialization)?

If I’m not mistaken, this will cause the object to which the method is bound to hang around until program termination. This isn’t likely to be a problem, but maybe there’s a more elegant solution?

Note: I know using __del__ is non-ideal because it can cause uncatchable exceptions, but I can’t think of another way to do this short of cascading finalize() calls all the way through my program. TIA!

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. 2026-05-11T00:58:58+00:00Added an answer on May 11, 2026 at 12:58 am

    If you don’t need your object to be alive at the time you perform the flush, you could use weak references

    This is similar to your proposed solution, but rather than using a real reference, store a list of weak references, with a callback function to perform the flush. This way, the references aren’t going to keep those objects alive, and you won’t run into any circular garbage problems with __del__ methods.

    You can run through the list of weak references on termination to manually flush any still alive if this needs to be guaranteed done at a certain point.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Ask A Question

Stats

  • Questions 124k
  • Answers 124k
  • Best Answers 0
  • User 1
  • Popular
  • Answers
  • Editorial Team

    How to approach applying for a job at a company ...

    • 7 Answers
  • Editorial Team

    How to handle personal stress caused by utterly incompetent and ...

    • 5 Answers
  • Editorial Team

    What is a programmer’s life like?

    • 5 Answers
  • Editorial Team
    Editorial Team added an answer private void sendData(ProfileVO pvo) { Log.i(getClass().getSimpleName(), "send task - start");… May 12, 2026 at 1:17 am
  • Editorial Team
    Editorial Team added an answer Can I assume that the scripts are being executed from… May 12, 2026 at 1:17 am
  • Editorial Team
    Editorial Team added an answer Try this rule: RewriteCond %{REMOTE_ADDR} !=127.0.0.0 [OR] RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !=specific.host.example… May 12, 2026 at 1:17 am

Related Questions

I want a simple class that implements a fixed-size circular buffer . It should
To keep my integration tests independent I remove all old data and insert new
Most projects have some sort of data that are essentially static between releases and
I have a list of changes to a list - Adds and Deletes. The

Trending Tags

analytics british company computer developers django employee employer english facebook french google interview javascript language life php programmer programs salary

Top Members

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.