On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Ian Clarke wrote: >> - There should be *some* kind of clean interface between fproxy and the >> node. Fproxy should operate on the same level as frost in the >> layering. > > So long as it doesn't need to run in a separate JVM.
>> We disagree: >> - I am of the view that fproxy should use a java interface class which >> can either be provided by FCP or by running in the same VM as the >> node, for performance and particularly memory usage. > > Agreed. > >> - Guido is of the view that we should use a completely separate VM for >> fproxy etc, and let the user switch it on and off easily. > > No way, JVMs are enough of a resource hog when you just have one of them. You (both) are making the assumption that the code would run in a JVM in the first place. Why is that necessarily so? [cue java discussion] Oh, and didn't Toad mention compiled java already? MAgnus
