|
From: Andrey B. <ne...@my...> - 2003-02-04 14:43:45
|
Hi Everybody! I don't know if I need to repeat what I had told to Bill according to = pool management. Just to give a clue to the others: =20 Bill, You have to take a look at shutdown hook closely (sorry for=20 unexpected pun :)). You can setup a system-wide shutdown=20 action by means of registering a hook thread. It may help to=20 make Proxool's use more transparent. Please refer=20 Runtime.addShutdownHook at javadoc manual.=20 regards, Andrew. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Bill Horsman (billhorsman) Date: 2003-02-04 12:14 Message: Logged In: YES=20 user_id=3D91747 Hi Andrew, I take your point. I don't like having code call the Proxool API directly. I would really like to come up with a transparent solution to this. Actually, Proxool already overrides the finalize method, but in my experience this doesn't always get called. I suspect that calling System.exit() means that it doesn't get called. We really need to do some more investigation into this to determine exactly what circumstances cause what behaviour. I think we need to read the specs a bit more closely and then do some testing. It would be nice to know exactly what the problem is.=20 We have not found any robust way of determining when the application has ended. Any suggestions are welcome.=20 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Andrew S. Budarevsky (trex) Date: 2003-02-04 10:20 Message: Logged In: YES=20 user_id=3D44856 Hello Bill! Thank you for the advising. It is worth. However I would say=20 that it breaks the general concept of proxool to be a=20 transparent driver's proxy. I know it happens due to leak of=20 virtual machine state events. Oops... What about a finalize=20 method? Could it be possible to close pools on finalizing?=20 Andrew. |