Re: Why isn't BusFactory.defaultBus a leakage opportunity?

2010-11-24 Thread Alessio Soldano
mmh, you're right, if someone explicitly set the default / thread bus, we can't afford to have that GC-ed, as we can't be sure we'll be able to re-create an equivalent one later, while the user would expect that to be in place. To be honest, even this solution (soft ref for bus created by

Re: Why isn't BusFactory.defaultBus a leakage opportunity?

2010-11-23 Thread Benson Margulies
An additional thought: if a bus is being created 'by magic', refer to it softly, either default or per-thread. If someone, on the other hand, makes an _explicit_ call to set a default bus, reference it strongly. On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: I

Re: Why isn't BusFactory.defaultBus a leakage opportunity?

2010-11-22 Thread Daniel Kulp
On Saturday 20 November 2010 4:18:29 pm Benson Margulies wrote: It's not weak. Nothing ever sets it to null. I propose to declare it as a WeakReference. There are SOME usage patterns that this change would make much slower. I'm thinking of the case where you use the pure JAX-WS API's and

Re: Why isn't BusFactory.defaultBus a leakage opportunity?

2010-11-22 Thread Alessio Soldano
+1 on adding this to the migration notes, this could be a major change for those just using jaxws api On 11/22/2010 05:34 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote: On Saturday 20 November 2010 4:18:29 pm Benson Margulies wrote: It's not weak. Nothing ever sets it to null. I propose to declare it as a

Why isn't BusFactory.defaultBus a leakage opportunity?

2010-11-20 Thread Benson Margulies
It's not weak. Nothing ever sets it to null. I propose to declare it as a WeakReference.