RE: [CFCDev] Objects byReference

[Hal Helms]

Title: RE: [CFCDev] Objects byReference

All you can do by calling java.lang.System.gc() is *suggest* to Java that it clean up memory. There’s no way to truly invoke the garbage collector.   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roland Collins Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 12:03 AM To: cfcdev@cfczone.org Subject: RE: [CFCDev] Objects byReference   Well, you _can_ force GC, but I wouldn’t recommend it except in _extremely_ rare situations.  I’d wager java’s native routines are fairly well tuned at this point, and who knows what CF is doing to optimize GC under the hood.   If you _have_ to play with it, you can do this, but don’t hurt yourself (hands over the loaded pistol):   <CFSET sys = CreateObject("java", "java.lang.System")> <CFSET sys.runFinalization()> <CFSET sys.gc()>   Roland   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 10:54 PM To: cfcdev@cfczone.org Subject: RE: [CFCDev] Objects byReference       Hehe Barry you had a point? When did you start doing them! hehehehe > so, this leads to two more questions: > Q1) when does the GC run - especially for objects in server > scope? I know in .NET the GC runs on a low-priority thread... No idea, probably the same as all j2EE applications.   > Q2) can you (in CF or java) force an object to be GC'd: > ie: in VB you can "Set obj = Nothing" to destroy the pointer > but you can also get rid of it completly with >   obj.Dispose() >   System.GC.Collect() >  > (yes, I realise the over head of forcing the GC to do it's > job but there *are* occasions where it's worthwhile) No, all you're doing there in CFMX is pointing that key at a new value, but the actual object itself still exists downstream. If it were on its own, then yes you do remove the reference from the object..its just a weird way of emptying a variable instead of StructDelete - that's my assumption anyway (I did sound like I knew it was the case then didn't i...sif). > > and on the subject of terminology, and we shouldn't be afraid > of using the "P" word - "pointer" Don't you start pointing words like pointer at us. Pointer is one of those words where when I hear it think of "Floating pointer" for some reason - which confuses me further - so I like the ye-olde "reference" - I think it serves the naming well? Scott