On Dec 28, 2006, at 11:33 AM, Rana Dasgupta wrote:
On 12/28/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Well, we need a finalizer. I agree that we're overthinking this a
>bit, but I'd like to understand why anyone thinks this belongs in
the
>GC - we keep claiming to do a modular VM, yet then do things like
>this... :)
We can keep the minimal finalization implementation we have now ( a
single
high priority finalization thread ), and wait for use cases that
need more.
IMHO.
The finalization subsystem is currently a VM component and the VM
exposes
the interface ( though minimal ) to the GC. This is the right way,
and does
not violate modularity or GC pluggability.
So I don't understand what we are discussing - you seem to agree with
me that it belongs in the VM, and not the GC.
This little discussion started because I was asking Xiaofeng why GCv5
had it's own finalization subsystem...
geir
