On 2/3/07, Xiao-Feng Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I've just studied ByteBuffer and MappedByteBuffer. If I understand >correctly, the latter one is similar to POSIX mmap, and it's a >subclass of ByteBuffer and uses a direct ByteBuffer. If it's >implemented in the way of mmap, we probably have no serious issue to >provide the required support in GC. The advantage to provide this >support in GC is, GC can decide when and how to start a collection. >And if the GC has some mechanism of reference counting, it can serve >the purpose even better.
Yes. If the GC could treat these as a special class of objects with different lifetime semantics and collection rules, that would be a nice approach. It may be better than invoking GC periodically.
Thanks, xiaofeng
