On Tuesday 01 August 2006 01:53 Alex Blewitt wrote: > On 31/07/06, Salikh Zakirov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Alex Blewitt wrote: > > > Don't get me wrong; being able to specify minimum/maximum is a > > > reasonable idea for optimising a VM if you know what to put; but by > > > default, there shouldn't be any arbitrary limitations based on the > > > value of a #define constant ... > > > > So, would you be satisfied if the VM defaulted to, say, 3/4 of total > > physical memory available? (not a #define, but a value detected at > > startup) > > > > I would like to get some concrete practical conclusion from the whole > > discussion. > > The question should be: "Why have a maximum?" and not "What should the > maximum be?" An algorithm that implicitly assumes a maximum is wrong.
There is a method Runtime.freeMemory() which returns the memory available in the heap. I wonder what it should return when there is no limit. Some applications may rely on the value which this method returns. Just returning Long.MAX_VALUE may lead to confusion. -- Gregory Shimansky, Intel Middleware Products Division --------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
