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.
|
