"Mo" == Mo DeJong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mo That does seem logical. It looks like the Class refs need to
Mo be cleaned up. What do you think of the patch below?
The patch looks good. I'll have to wait until tonight to apply it, as
I can't seem to apply it to the version that I
"Mo" == Mo DeJong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mo There are two cleanup cases.
Mo TclThreadCleanup is called when a Tcl thread (one that was not
Mo started inside a JVM) is terminated. TclThreadCleanup will
Mo just call DetachCurrentThread() to disconnect the Tcl thread
Mo
On Thu, 12 Oct 2000, Daniel Wickstrom wrote:
"Mo" == Mo DeJong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mo There are two cleanup cases.
Mo TclThreadCleanup is called when a Tcl thread (one that was not
Mo started inside a JVM) is terminated. TclThreadCleanup will
Mo just call
"Mo" == Mo DeJong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mo What do you mean by "The jvm attach is done at the start of
Mo the thread by a registered proc"? Are you not using:
Mo (*javaVM)-AttachCurrentThread()
Mo In JavaInitEnv() to attach the Tcl thread to the JVM? This is
Mo also
On Thu, 12 Oct 2000, Daniel Wickstrom wrote:
"Mo" == Mo DeJong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mo What do you mean by "The jvm attach is done at the start of
Mo the thread by a registered proc"? Are you not using:
Mo (*javaVM)-AttachCurrentThread()
Mo In JavaInitEnv()
If you ask me, you time would be better spent getting the
current code into "shape" so that it can be dropped into
aolserver as is.
The code on the branch is not really set in stone, so if
you can provide a reasonable way to add your stuff with
only a minimal change (like #ifdef AOLSERVER
On Thu, 12 Oct 2000, Dan Wickstrom wrote:
If you ask me, you time would be better spent getting the
current code into "shape" so that it can be dropped into
aolserver as is.
The code on the branch is not really set in stone, so if
you can provide a reasonable way to add your stuff
On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, Daniel Wickstrom wrote:
Last weekend I ran the merged tclblend/aolserver combination using
apache-bench to make concurrent accesses of multiple urls, and I
noticed that the memory size was growing over time. I think this is
probably due in part to the java info cache
