Mailing-List: contact dev-help@harmony.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Received-SPF: error (herse.apache.org: local policy)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
In-Reply-To: <51d555c70612281054w605707e1qdae50150e8eeaee6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4dd1f3f00612211832u447fa2e4i90b4eb108762af8f@mail.gmail.com>
 <9623c9a50612261730k1c7342c3m9ad6b3d158cedcd1@mail.gmail.com>
 <866ECD92-8D0F-4F0D-B214-1B27A8870C5A@pobox.com>
 <4dd1f3f00612271834j7afa7a06v5778d3783df525db@mail.gmail.com>
 <9623c9a50612280633k18b934cbkc4c36b2611092485@mail.gmail.com>
 <13D6EC44-4121-46B9-A710-003A3FAA5187@pobox.com>
 <51d555c70612280801y6915702ay1983388366af7252@mail.gmail.com>
 <E9E1F66D-8D15-4051-BA46-AF3F27AF0DC1@pobox.com>
 <51d555c70612280833p202e57d1g511b8c240db4deed@mail.gmail.com>
 <E3272A42-B28D-42A7-AE0C-8247E263FFED@pobox.com>
 <51d555c70612281054w605707e1qdae50150e8eeaee6@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <8333617E-895D-4284-ABA8-7FD6389FCB3D@pobox.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "Geir Magnusson Jr." <geir@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: [drlvm] finalizer design questions
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 15:01:10 -0500
To: dev@harmony.apache.org


On Dec 28, 2006, at 1:54 PM, Rana Dasgupta wrote:

> GCV5 does not need a custom finalizer. That is what would impact  
> modularity.
> In fact, even that would not, if the interface were standardised.
> However, one would prefer GC's not to provide their own  
> implementations for
> the interface since they are not fully aware of system load, and  
> the GC dll
> can be unloaded in somewhat dynamic environments.

Exactly.

>
> All that has happened is that working on GCV5 has caused the current
> finalizer design/implementation to be reviewed.

I see.  I was confused by the following from Xiao-Feng, which made me  
think that the GVv5 had it's own finalizer subsystem.

On Dec 28, 2006, at 9:33 AM, Xiao-Feng Li wrote:

> Very interesting. Thanks for the probation. I think GCv5 finalization
> subsystem does similarly.


>
> On 12/28/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Dec 28, 2006, at 11:33 AM, Rana Dasgupta wrote:
>>
>> > On 12/28/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >Well, we need a finalizer.  I agree that we're overthinking  
>> this a
>> >> >bit, but I'd like to understand why anyone thinks this belongs in
>> >> the
>> >> >GC - we keep claiming to do a modular VM, yet then do things like
>> >> >this... :)
>> >
>> >
>> > We can keep the minimal finalization implementation we have now ( a
>> > single
>> > high priority finalization thread ), and wait for use cases that
>> > need more.
>> > IMHO.
>> >
>> > The finalization subsystem is currently a VM component and the VM
>> > exposes
>> > the interface ( though minimal ) to the GC. This is the right way,
>> > and does
>> > not violate modularity or GC pluggability.
>>
>> So I don't understand what we are discussing - you seem to agree with
>> me that it belongs in the VM, and not the GC.
>>
>> This little discussion started because I was asking Xiaofeng why GCv5
>> had it's own finalization subsystem...
>>
>> geir
>>
>>
>>
>>