l be created which will cause the old to be removed, eventually
> allowing the class loader to be unloaded.
>
> On Jul 14, 2008, at 12:31 AM, Roman Puchkovskiy wrote:
>
>>
>> Oops, sent too early, excuse me :) One more to say: yes, Yonik is
>> correct.
>>
m, but I don't think that is the case with
> Lucene, as the objects stored in ThreadLocals are designed to live
> for the life of the SegmentReader/IndexReader and thread.
>
>
> On Jul 12, 2008, at 2:12 AM, Roman Puchkovskiy wrote:
>
>>
>> Well, possibly I'
nce will not be cleared.
>
> If the object is VERY large, and new ThreadLocals are not created it
> could cause a problem, but I don't think that is the case with
> Lucene, as the objects stored in ThreadLocals are designed to live
> for the life of the SegmentReade
tters is that they are referenced by ThreadLocals map in the thread
which is still alive.
Robert Engels wrote:
>
> This is only an issue for static ThreadLocals ...
>
> On Jul 11, 2008, at 11:32 PM, Roman Puchkovskiy wrote:
>
>>
>> The problem here is not because Th
The problem here is not because ThreadLocal instances are not GC'd (they are
GC'd, and your test shows this clearly).
But even one instance which is not removed from its Thread is enough to
prevent the classloader from being unloaded, and that's the problem.
Michael McCandless-2 wrote:
>
> OK,
