Subject Re: [IB-Architect] Re: Digest Number 460
Author Jim Starkey
At 01:11 PM 2/8/02 -0000, jimh_datagrove_com wrote:
> [snip]
>It may or may not
>be as easy to cleanly kill a VM with open handles. Finally, it seems
>to me that many people using VM's at some point need to rely on some
>amount of "native methods". But loading in these native methods is
>tantamount to the security issues you raised before. Finally I claim
>that out of process routines would add less byte bulk to the core
>engine. It is after all the most significate advantage that InterBase
>has over all its competition.

As they say, been there, done that.

A tame JVM can resolve native calls to local code without invoking
an external shared library. This solves a vast host of problems.
Handles are managed by a non-Java visible "external reference" pointer
in objects of known classes, providing a relatively straightforward
way to manage interrelationships between real handle/objects and
the JDBC equivalent.

The actual JVM is almost insignificant in size. What bulk is there
is code to handle class files and the zillion of native methods
necessary support the Java base classes. Done tightly, it could
be done in 25 - 50K of object code. Getting fancy with dynamic
class reloading would double that.

But if you're really interested in reducing bloat, teach the
current crop of programmers the art of the subroutine as a
replacement for cut and paste.

Jim Starkey