Joachim Draeger wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman schrieb:
> > This problem sounds related one we've previously documented, but
> > not finished fixing. The file-based repositories maintain an
> > in-memory list of the e-mails, which grows forever unless you
> > remove messages from it.
> They hold references to the complete messages?
The issues are separate, but related in the sense that the file repository
code does a bunch of "caching" of things, whereas the JDBC code defers to
the db.
> It should be possible to make them only cache key2filename relation
> and load messages only on retrieve().
Yes, but even that is brutal, because some stores can grow to be huge, which
can cause OOM. Maintaining the index exclusively in memory is the problem.
> My latest information by Stefano was that there should be only weak
> references to the MessageRepositories and they are gc'ed away after
> no one is accessing them anymore.
>From a quick glance at the code, Looks to me as if there are still some hard
references.
> IMHO James shouldn't hold a references to every MessageRepository even
> if it is not accessed.
Agreed. That was a JIRA issue I had opened a long time ago. Apparently, we
aren't quite done fixing it. :-)
> > Ideally, we can deprecate file-based repositories in favor of dbfile,
> > unless we have a need for purely file-based repositories.
> I'm sure many people want to have their messages in files so they are
> able to access them with other tools.
Absolutely, which is why I didn't say "db". We ought to be able to provide
a db/file repository that satisfies the requirement. You can't effectively
make use of the other file of the filepair, anyway, which is what we could
keep in the database.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
