Both the Waratek and IBM multi Tenant JVMs demonstrate that the options of
one app per jvm
or many apps per jvm can be efficient and isolated. But I believe that
both of these require that
objects be serialized in order to be sent between apps. My question was
about avoiding the cost
of this
You may also consider IBM's multi-tenant JVM:
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/java/library/j-multitenant-java/index.html?ca=drs
It's a rehash of MVM from the SunLab's Barcelona project 10 years ago
(e.g., see
http://www.digitalcld.com/cld/emerging-technology-ibms-remarkable-multi-tenant-clou
At Waratek it is a JVM wide message bus you can use to pass messages from one
application to another (as far as I know).
- Chris
Am 13.01.2014 um 06:37 schrieb Charles Oliver Nutter :
> I think some of these requirements are at cross purposes. For example,
> how can you have thread-safe object
I think some of these requirements are at cross purposes. For example,
how can you have thread-safe object access but still be able to freely
pass objects across "processes"? How can you freely pass objects
across in-process VMs but still enforce memory red lines? The better
isolation you get betwe
Thanks for the suggestion on Waratek, not sure how it would address the
process to process
messaging issue. It did lead me to another very interesting read though,
http://osv.io. Again
not an answer for the messaging but something that I have always thought
would be interesting to
try, a str
You might want to take a look at the Waratek JVM - it has an interesting
approach to this problem.
Thanks,
Ben
On 12 Jan 2014 23:15, "Mark Roos" wrote:
> From Charles
> I forgot to mention: more and more users are going with exactly one
>JRuby runtime per app, and most Ruby folk
>From Charles
I forgot to mention: more and more users are going with exactly
one
JRuby runtime per app, and most Ruby folks deploy one app in a
given
I have been pondering the merits of apps with a shared jvm ( protection is
provided via a
sandbox) vs independent jvms per app.
