 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Java Forum / General / December 2007too many parameters
Guys, I'm updating some legacy code from Java 1.3.1 to at least 1.4.2_13. It's a CORBA app (Orbix) and the idl has many modules with many data members. The orbix idlj generates two constructors: a no param constructor and one that takes all data members as params. The later can have hundreds of params and somewhere between Java 1.3.1 and 1.4.2 a limit seems to have been placed on the number of params to around 255, or at least that's the limit I've seen mentioned in a couple of places retrieved from Google searches. I was wondering if anyone knows if this limit has been lifted in any later Java version or if there're any compiler options to disable it? I've also posted on the Orbzone forum to see if there's an Orbix 6.3 idlj option to stop it adding these constrctors but I'm not hopeful there. P.S. I'm very limited in messing with the build as it has to be compliant with a very restrictive compliance system that monitors technology compatibilities etc. I am also assuming that there was no param limit in 1.3.1 as the component must have built before, though thinking about it I should try that tomorrow as I guess it could've been fudged by messing with the generated Java files, or possibly the previous Orbix version, 5.1, didn't generate these constructors by default. Cheers, Richard. On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 19:17:11 GMT, "Richard Reynolds" <richiereynolds@ntlworld.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said : >on the number of params to around 255, or at least that's the limit I've >seen mentioned in a couple of places retrieved from Google searches. One way to find out is download the latest Java, or the one you want to use, and cook up a method with 255 parms. Then compile. If it eats it, try 256. If not binary search till you find the limit. This sounds like a limit that is burned into the class file format somewhere. 255 would be a 1-byte count. That would be hard to change now.  SignatureRoedy Green Canadian Mind Products The Java Glossary http://mindprod.com > On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 19:17:11 GMT, "Richard Reynolds" > <richiereynolds@ntlworld.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > somewhere. 255 would be a 1-byte count. That would be hard to change > now. If there is such a limit it would violate the JLS. > FormalParameterList: > LastFormalParameter [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > FormalParameter > FormalParameters , FormalParameter <http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/third_edition/html/classes.html#8.4.1> If there is a limit to method arity it isn't mentioned in the JLS or in any source I was able to scare up in a quick web search. SignatureLew > > On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 19:17:11 GMT, "Richard Reynolds" > > <richiereyno...@ntlworld.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Well, there does seem to be a limit of soms sort, I get this error message in eclipse: "Too many parameters, parameter CrvV75 is exceeding the limit of 255 words eligible for method parameters" This is appearing against param 178 in a constructor using a 1.5 compiler with source compatibility set to 1.4. > Well, there does seem to be a limit of soms sort, I get this error > message in eclipse: > "Too many parameters, parameter CrvV75 is exceeding the limit of 255 > words eligible for method parameters" > This is appearing against param 178 in a constructor using a 1.5 > compiler with source compatibility set to 1.4. Parameter 178, not parameter 255? Whose JDK? SignatureLew >> Well, there does seem to be a limit of soms sort, I get this error >> message in eclipse: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Parameter 178, not parameter 255? From the VM specification, "A method descriptor is valid only if it represents method parameters with a total length of 255 or less, where that length includes the contribution for 'this' in the case of instance or interface method invocations. The total length is calculated by summing the contributions of the individual parameters, where a parameter of type long or double contributes two units to the length and a parameter of any other type contributes one unit." On 14 Dec, 15:19, "Larry A Barowski" <ThisisLarrybarAtEngDotAuburnDotLearninginstitution> wrote: > >> Well, there does seem to be a limit of soms sort, I get this error > >> message in eclipse: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > to > the length and a parameter of any other type contributes one unit." Sounds like my problem alright. Oh well, guess I have to find another solution. Thanks for that info. > > Well, there does seem to be a limit of soms sort, I get this error > > message in eclipse: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Parameter 178, not parameter 255? Yep. > Whose JDK? > > -- > Lew Sun's. > If there is a limit to method arity it isn't mentioned in the JLS or in > any source I was able to scare up in a quick web search. These limits appear in the JVM specification. > The orbix idlj generates two constructors: a no param constructor and one > that takes all data members as params. The later can have hundreds of params [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I was wondering if anyone knows if this limit has been lifted in any later > Java version or if there're any compiler options to disable it? Well, the VM spec limits the maximum possible arity to 65533, which is assuming that all arguments are primitive types and that the return type is either primitive or void. This limit is based on the fact that the method descriptor is stored in as a UTF-8 string with an unsigned 2-byte length. Two characters are '(' and ')'; the last one is for the return type. SignatureBeware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth On Dec 13, 11:17 am, "Richard Reynolds" <richiereyno...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > Guys, I'm updating some legacy code from Java 1.3.1 to at least 1.4.2_13. > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Cheers, Richard. What kind of objects are these, that have hundreds of members? > On Dec 13, 11:17 am, "Richard Reynolds" <richiereyno...@ntlworld.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > - Show quoted text - They're business objects, to represent financial entities e.g. bond trades. They're really just name value pairs or sublists of the same but are defined in IDL as they are passed over networks to systems working in defferent languages. The problem isn't with there being many members but that, as well as all the getters and setters, for java, Orbix generates a constructor taking every member by default! Free MagazinesGet these publications absolutely FREE for up to 12 months. There are no hidden fees and no obligation. Simply choose a title, complete the application form and submit it. Read more ...
|
Reply to this Message
|
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.