Path: csiph.com!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: =?UTF-8?Q?Arne_Vajh=c3=b8j?= Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: Jigsaw Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 19:49:04 -0400 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 34 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: PBuS014lhzVyHjLbXmo/ZQ.user.gioia.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:36541 On 4/26/2017 6:32 PM, omegajunior wrote: > Arne Vajhøj Wrote in message: >> On 4/24/2017 11:15 AM, Eric Douglas wrote: >>> I'm not sure if this "jigsaw" is the same JRE classes broken up to >>> different jars, or how this accomplishes the other stated goals of >>> improving security, maintainability, and application performance. >> >> The modular split and the dependency management can certainly >> improve things for large systems. > > Yes, for limited systems (mobile phones, set-top boxes, smart > cards) > both the file size and the amount of memory (both stack > and heap) used by the JRE form prohibitive factors. > I do hope that Jigsaw forces core java to separate class loading > between concerns, so I can, for instance, totally remove > java.xml, if my application doesn't use xml, or allows me to > replace a default implementation of some interface entirely with > a competing one. It can help on disk space. It can not help with memory. JVM's does not load jar files - they load single classes when they are needed. Same number of classes will be in memory without and with jigsaw. Memory usage is up to the developer. Arne