This was a problem in Java 1.02 as well

Post #148,684 by tuberculosis 3/25/04 10:45:43 PM 8/21/07 6:10:26 AM Reply	This was a problem in Java 1.02 as well Which might say somtehing about the state of C#. I recall there was a problem with 1.02 collecting Classes that the runtime thought were not needed. This resulted in expensively allocated singletons vanishing and inconvenient times and performance hits initializing all new singletons when they were referenced again. Yes it sucked and was stupid. The workaround at the time was to launch the VM with --no-class-gc (something like that). I think this is now the default. Classes ought not to be subject to GC or ought to be held strongly by their ClassLoader (the latter is probably best). Java is a joke, only it's not funny. --Alan Lovejoy Edited by tuberculosis Aug. 21, 2007, 06:10:26 AM EDT This was a problem in Java 1.02 as well Which might say somtehing about the state of C#. I recall there was a problem with 1.02 collecting Classes that the runtime thought were not needed. This resulted in expensively allocated singletons vanishing and inconvenient times and performance hits initializing all new singletons when they were referenced again. Yes it sucked and was stupid. The workaround at the time was to launch the VM with --no-class-gc (something like that). I think this is now the default. Classes ought not to be subject to GC or ought to be held strongly by their ClassLoader (the latter is probably best). Java is a joke, only it's not funny. --Alan Lovejoy Collapse All History
Post #148,834 by dshellman 3/26/04 3:56:20 PM Reply	Re: This was a problem in Java 1.02 as well Obviously, this was a problem with an earlier version of Java that does not have the problem any more (of course, you trade this problem for the new classloader problem of today). However, I did not realize that .NET (the underlying CLR, I should say) had this same problem. Is this by design or just another bug? I wonder if it's still there as part of the 1.1 version of .NET. If so, I wonder how they will solve it (Java solved it by creating a parent/child relationship between classloaders, but this caused other problems). Dan
Post #148,849 by Arkadiy 3/26/04 5:46:17 PM Reply	Could you elaborate on classloader problem? <shame>I don't know what it is</shame> -- Less Is More. In my book, About Face, I introduce over 50 powerful design axioms. This is one of them. --Alan Cooper. The Inmates Are Running the Asylum
Post #149,461 by dshellman 3/31/04 8:14:03 AM Reply	Re: Could you elaborate on classloader problem? The basic issue is how the new (as in JDK 1.2 and more recent) classloaders work. Here's a good explanation of the issue here: [link\|http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/javaqa/2003-06/01-qa-0606-load.html\|http://www.javaworld...qa-0606-load.html] Dan
Post #149,466 by Arkadiy 3/31/04 9:03:13 AM Reply	As the article says, "Those class and resource loading strategies must be the most poorly documented and least specified area of J2SE." Since I only deal with Java applications and applets, I normally don't encounter any of the problems described. But, it was an entertaining read. Thank you. -- Less Is More. In my book, About Face, I introduce over 50 powerful design axioms. This is one of them. --Alan Cooper. The Inmates Are Running the Asylum

Welcome to IWETHEY!