On Sep 6, 7:17 pm, Robert O'Callahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sep 6, 11:35 am, mhammond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > As you are, I'm also slightly skeptical that "insisting" that > > languages which want to play in our new playground be reimplemented on > > a new virtual machine will be fruitful. > > Me too. But there's a less intrusive option, which is to ask their VM > to participate in a distributed mark and sweep algorithm using a > common interface. This can be done without constraining the > representation of the VM's objects. > > I understand that's still a major requirement, especially since the > interface doesn't exist yet and when it does exist VMs will have to be > retrofitted with it in sensitive areas of their code. But I don't see > any possibility of collecting cycles across VM boundaries unless the > VMs participate in some kind of global tracing algorithm.
That would be reasonable assuming the *only* problem we see with cross- language xpcom is collecting cycles - but it seems to me that this thread has identified a number of other issues too - for example, there was discussion of dropping AddRef and Release and moving to assuming MMgc or similar is the memory manager. Such issues go beyond simply integrating with a cycle collection detector (and bring us right back to the start of this thread :) Cheers, Mark _______________________________________________ dev-tech-xpcom mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-xpcom
