Mailing-List: contact harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of rdasgupt@gmail.com designates
 64.233.162.195 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
        b=fa9fE4XT2pyWyw4ttZkuXytIBdHfXtnatNAWcyVZYMyEgiDusZ9UZnPSyr2WP4hNfuxbb8Zv59CXTEUqAH4p1x75NpVu6rbR1G1DlNskNk9WxDT5pxt2kcaigBjZqAiqATI1fB/ZDA1JXK6tSbr92fvSew4el/w+31OtQr5A2Ns=
Message-ID: <51d555c70610300624s26825ef9u3f455764fdcf84ca@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 07:24:31 -0700
From: "Rana Dasgupta" <rdasgupt@gmail.com>
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Re: [drlvm] Class unloading support
In-Reply-To: <636fd28e0610281413x57d2483dudcf1af73e7750131@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_Part_48731_13627970.1162218271943"
References: <5836de490610240251p120dfa56x736fbb5eb1898aca@mail.gmail.com>
	 <45422160.90106@pobox.com>
	 <9623c9a50610271647j5fef07d7r30ab4b243880fc63@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4542A24E.9060209@pobox.com>
	 <9623c9a50610271758y5e7f87c9p331c26af3e8b6717@mail.gmail.com>
	 <51d555c70610271835s7304ff95t2fb639161a4f478b@mail.gmail.com>
	 <bc79dd600610280659o3754b695wf0ce30f5be7bfdbd@mail.gmail.com>
	 <51d555c70610281005k722b9398m3677c828cf579a7e@mail.gmail.com>
	 <bc79dd600610281112i32ab0fe1r95114c517bf839cd@mail.gmail.com>
	 <636fd28e0610281413x57d2483dudcf1af73e7750131@mail.gmail.com>

------=_Part_48731_13627970.1162218271943
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

The point is not that it is unimportant because it is an optimization. It is
1) it seems something that is be good to have, but is not urgent
immediately 2) that given the nature of our best solution ( java tables etc.
) is risky, we may not want to experiment with it in the main branch. We
should also study other solutions.

On 10/28/06, Alex Blewitt <alex.blewitt@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  True, but then JIT is an optimisation that isn't mandated in the JLS
> > > either :-) There are also JVMs that don't depend on a JIT, but just
> > > because it isn't mandated as a standard doesn't make it any less
> > > important to implement it.
> > >
> > > For that matter, there's nothing in the JLS that mandates how GC
> > > works. It's quite possible to have a JVM that never does any GC, and
> > > just sucks memory until it can't suck any more, and throw an
> > > OutOfMemoryException. What the JLS does say is the order in which
> > > finalise methods should be called prior to the storage being
> > > reclaimed; they don't mandate that the storage must be reclaimed.
> > >
> > > So, just because it's not mandated doesn't mean it's not important to
> > > do :-)
> > >
> > > Alex.
> > >
> >

------=_Part_48731_13627970.1162218271943--