: I had the same question. In all of the years I've worked with Java I've : always thought it was free of memory leaks.
This is a touchy topic, because a lot of it comes down to semantics: Java frees the developer of explicitly destroying objects. This is key in Java because your code only handles references, not true objects, so you can't rely on something "going out of scope" to cause it to be destroyed. A simplified picture: Java's GC pretty much relies on an object having no live references (connections) to it to determine whether to reap it. So it's entirely possible to create a memory leak in Java if your code manages to maintain reference to an object that's no longer "needed" or "being used," because said object will never be reaped. -QM --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
