I see your points.
I just wanna optimize a legacy muti-jvm ( muti-processes) system, in
which a lots of static data are stored in each process. and it will
consume lots of memory.
So RMI, Socket, ... is not suitable for access such lots of static
data.
If the jvm has a extension to create/access share memory, I believe it
will be a great feature.
Ingo R. Homann 寫道:
> Hi,
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> Hth,
> Ingo
Jeff.C - 25 Jul 2006 16:44 GMT
Just an update,
As a new feature, JDK 1.5 can share read-only data between JVMs. :-)
Jeff.C 寫道:
> I see your points.
> I just wanna optimize a legacy muti-jvm ( muti-processes) system, in
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> > Hth,
> > Ingo
Gordon Beaton - 25 Jul 2006 16:50 GMT
> If the jvm has a extension to create/access share memory, I believe
> it will be a great feature.
You won't find support for this in Java, but it's possible using
native code. Many years ago I implemented a Map that used SysV shared
memory as backing store, allowing multiple JVMs to share its contents.
/gordon

Signature
[ don't email me support questions or followups ]
g o r d o n + n e w s @ b a l d e r 1 3 . s e
Thomas Hawtin - 25 Jul 2006 17:30 GMT
>> If the jvm has a extension to create/access share memory, I believe
>> it will be a great feature.
>
> You won't find support for this in Java, but it's possible using
> native code. Many years ago I implemented a Map that used SysV shared
> memory as backing store, allowing multiple JVMs to share its contents.
You've been able to do this in Java for a number of years now...
http://download.java.net/jdk6/docs/api/java/nio/channels/FileChannel.html#map(ja
va.nio.channels.FileChannel.MapMode,
long, long)
Tom Hawtin

Signature
Unemployed English Java programmer
http://jroller.com/page/tackline/
Ingo R. Homann - 26 Jul 2006 07:36 GMT
Hi Jeff,
> I see your points.
> I just wanna optimize a legacy muti-jvm ( muti-processes) system, in
> which a lots of static data are stored in each process. and it will
> consume lots of memory.
> So RMI, Socket, ... is not suitable for access such lots of static
> data.
Why not? If the data is needed, it can be accessed cia the Socket.
Ciao,
Ingo