[zeromq-dev] Java bindings error?

Joe Holloway jholloway7 at gmail.com
Thu Jun 24 03:17:17 CEST 2010

On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Stuart Halloway <stu at thinkrelevance.com> wrote:
> If the context represents any real resources on the native side, I would recommend going in the opposite direction:
> (1) Clients should create and hold the context, and explicitly close it when they are done.
> (2) Ditto for sockets (except that creation is via the context).
> (3) Neither Context nor Socket should implement finalize.
> (4) Instead, they should implement the Closeable interface [1].
> How costly is the context? Should it be created once per process? Once per thread? Something else?
> [1] http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/api/java/io/Closeable.html

I can't speak to how expensive these resources are (or could be in the
future), but will add +1 for these suggestions.  I had a similar
thought back when I was working with the 2.0.5+ version of the API,
but the Java binding underwent a hefty design phase to make it
look/feel more like some of the other language bindings.

Now that you've brought it up again, it makes me wonder if there ought
to be a general guideline in the binding developer guidelines [1] to
implement support for a given language's "resource closing" interface
(whatever analogy exists in the given language).  For example, Java
has java.io.Closeable, Python has the "context management protocol"
for use in "with" statements, etc.

[1] http://www.zeromq.org/guidelines:bindings

More information about the zeromq-dev mailing list