On Mon, 2008-06-09 at 12:20 -0400, Andy Spitzer wrote: > Woof! > > On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 11:32:56 -0400, M. Ranganathan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > One will be called symmitron and another will be called > > sipxbridge. Each will have its own process descriptor and be managed > > independent of the other. Both will use the same nat traversal library > > ( they will share code ) but they will run as independent processes. > > > > I understand the desire for independance (It's almost July 4th, after all!) > but starting up multiple JVMs just to enable independant control is something > I'm against. If Java "services" can share a JVM, I'm all for the memory > savings > that can provide.
Can you quantify that at a system level? Surely most of them are sharable pages? > Independant control can be achieved differently, with > RPC calls or other comms environment than signals (which is what is used > today). > > Please recall the "stdin/stdout" control mechanism I outlined as a possible > part of the new Process manager. That would be one way of controlling > multiple "services" inside one JVM. But at this point that has not made the cut for 4.0 (unfortunately). -- Scott Lawrence tel:+1.781.229.0533;ext=162 or sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sipXecs project coordinator - SIPfoundry http://www.sipfoundry.org/sipXecs CTO, Voice Solutions - Bluesocket Inc. http://www.bluesocket.com/ http://www.pingtel.com/ _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
