Hey
Imre Kifor wrote:
> Assuming that DGC is available, the client GC notifies the server GC that it
> doesn't use our object anymore. However, the server GC still cannot release
> the object since there are local references to it (remember that at
> least the server is holding on to it). Hence DGC is not enough for
> reclaiming our object.
But since the server is the *only* local referrer you know that if DGC
tells you it's unreferenced, you can reclaim it. All clients must (?)
use remote references for talking to it.
> Java 2 solves the problem very nicely by introducing "weak" references.
> Using Java 2, the server can hold on to our object with weak references thus
> not restricting the GC. Hence the GC can reclaim the object after all (both
> remote and local) strong references are released.
How will this relate to the upcoming EJB spec. release where RMI/IIOP
will be mandated (since RMI/IIOP doesn't support DGC!!!!)??
/Rickard
--
Rickard �berg
Computer Science student@LiTH
@home: +46 13 177937
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Homepage: http://www-und.ida.liu.se/~ricob684
===========================================================================
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
of the message "signoff EJB-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
