On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Marshall Schor m...@schor.com wrote:
I agree in general about not making things more complicated at least to
the user. I can imagine education working for
1) things like string interning
2) things like deleting features from type systems where they're not
Adam Lally wrote:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Marshall Schor m...@schor.com wrote:
I agree in general about not making things more complicated at least to
the user. I can imagine education working for
1) things like string interning
2) things like deleting features from type systems
I agree with both of these concepts: only GC'ing things which are not
in the index and also not reachable from something that is in the index,
and making GC'ing (mostly) automatic, based on thresholds, etc, when a
component exits back to the framework. This would be fine for now - if
use cases
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Adam Lally ala...@alum.rpi.edu wrote:
The next question is under what conditions would a GC execute.
Requiring an explicit call seems counter to what other garbage
collecting runtime environments do, and like Thilo I'm confused about
who would call this and
I think this would be a good addition. I don't see a need for an explicit
call to invoke GC. The parameter of a threshold relative to CAS heapsize
would be useful. But also the ability to specify a GC on exiting one
analysis engine and before invoking the next. This could be turned off for
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 10:30 PM, Balkrishnan. V balkrishna...@iiitb.net wrote:
Marshall Schor m...@... writes:
Did you try increasing your java heap size? What size are you running with?
-Marshall
Hi Marshall,
ThankYou for your time.
Yes, I tried resetting the jvm-heap-size to 1327MB
