harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Andrey Chernyshev" <a.y.chernys...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [classlib] Is it OK for VM kernel class to call internal classlib API?
Date Fri, 07 Jul 2006 15:29:21 GMT
On 7/7/06, Oliver Deakin <oliver.deakin@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Andrey Chernyshev wrote:
> > I was trying to compile the kernel classes set from DRLVM independently
> > from the classlib and found it difficult because kernel classes set
> > currently have a dependence on the internal classlib API, e.g.
> > org.apache.harmony.luni.internal.net.www.protocol.jar.JarURLConnection
> > and org.apache.harmony.luni.util.DeleteOnExit classes.
> >
> > I've found the spec for kernel class org.apache.harmony.kernel.vm.VM
> > (l'm looking at
> > classlib\trunk\modules\luni-kernel\src\main\java\org\apache\harmony\kernel\vm\VM.java)
> >
> > assumes that VM is calling excplicitly
> > JarURLConnection.closeCachedFiles()
> > and DeleteOnExit.deleteOnExit() during VM shutdown.
> >
> > On the other hand, there is standard API in J2SE called
> > java.lang.Runtime.addShutdownHook(Thread) which can be used to specify
> > the
> > tasks that have to be done during VM shutdown.
> > BTW, this is exactly how DRLVM implements these methods in it's
> > VM.java. For example, for VM.closeJars() it currently does like:
> >
> > public static void closeJars() {
> >     class CloseJarsHook implements Runnable {
> >     public void run() {
> >     JarURLConnection.closeCachedFiles();
> >     }
> >     }
> >        ...
> >        Runtime.getRuntime().addShutdownHook(new Thread(new
> > CloseJarsHook()));
> > }
> >
> > Are there any problems with this approach, should the DRLVM (or other
> > Vm's) implement these methods differently?
>
> There is a potential problem with this approach. The code that is run by the
> shutdown hooks is not restricted in its behaviour and the order that the
> shutdown hooks are executed in is not guaranteed. If the deleteOnExit()
> and/or closeCachedFiles are not the last hooks to be executed, it is quite
> possible that a subsequent shutdown hook could try to access files that
> have already been deleted. The only way to guarantee that this will
> never happen is to make sure that deleteOnExit() and closeCachedFiles()
> are called after all shutdown hooks have completed.
>
> Of course, how this is implemented is down to the VM developer - but
> I would strongly recommend not using shutdown hooks for this purpose.

Thanks Oliver, this explanation sounds reasonable.
If the issue is just in the shutdown hooks order, then, still may be
it makes sense to add VM.addClasslibShutdownHook(Runnable) method or
something like that, which can be:
- used by the classlib to do whatever resource cleanup / shutdown
works they need;
- guaranteed by VM to be executed always after Runtime's shutdown
hooks are done (can be specified in the contract)?
This approach looks more universal than having two specific methods
cloaseJars() and deletOnExit(). It will also allow VM to do not call
internal classlib API explicitly.

>
> >
> > May be it makes sense just to move VM.closeJars() and
> > VM.deleteOnExit() methods and their drlvm implementation to the luni
> > classlib component, under assumption that they do not really contain
> > any VM-specific code?
>
> The version of VM.java currently under luni-kernel does not contain
> any VM specific code either, as all its methods simply return null :)
> It does, however, give hints as to how to implement the methods
> in the javadoc comments (perhaps it should clarify the reason
> for not using shutdown hooks).
>
> As described above, I think there is a problem with this implementation,
> so I would not like to see it used as an example for other VM
> developers.
>
>
> I have noticed that the Javadoc comments for the DRLVM implementation
> of deleteOnExit() and closeJars() both say:
>
>  /**
>     * 1) This is temporary implementation
>     * 2) We've proposed another approach to perform shutdown actions.
>     */
>
> Have I missed the proposal of this other approach, or are the comments
> inaccurate?

I guess there were no one on the mailing list, this seems to be a
history of the past internal discussions within drlvm development
team.

>
> > I guess it will simplify a bit the org.apache.harmony.kernel.vm.VM
> > interface as well as would allow to avoid extra dependencies between
> > VM and classlib.
> >
>
> IMHO there is no problem for kernel classes to have dependencies on
> classlib - they are, after all, just another part of the class library that
> happens to get developed separately due to their nature.

Actually I thought of the kernel classes being part of VM since they
are tied to VM-specific functionality. If this is true, then it may be
good if we can keep the interface between VM and classlib "clean",
e.g. without  dependencies on the API which doesn't appear in J2SE.

Thanks,
Andrey.

>
> Regards,
> Oliver
>
> --
> Oliver Deakin
> IBM United Kingdom Limited
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Andrey Chernyshev
Intel Middleware Products Division

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message