Best way to halt Java process?

[Joshua Cranmer]

Sorry, i have no idea what errors you're talking about here. What do you
mean by 'server'? Could you give a couple of examples?

Typo. It's supposed to be "service" providers.

 

[Lew]

Really? To me, destructive testing is absolutely necessary,

That doesn't contradict tom's point, which, to combine both your observations,
is that unreasonable apps are sometimes absolutely necessary.

"Unreasonable" != "unnecessary" or even "improper". It's not even a computer
term, much less rigorously defined in this context.

If you guys are going to argue, at least pick theses that contradict each
other. For example, pick different numbers for how many angels can dance on
the head of a pin.

 

[Joshua Cranmer]

If you guys are going to argue, at least pick theses that contradict
each other. For example, pick different numbers for how many angels can
dance on the head of a pin.

36.3 if it doesn't have a bulbous plastic head, 5417.24 if it does.

 

[Tom Anderson]

36.3 if it doesn't have a bulbous plastic head, 5417.24 if it does.

No, because clearly 'head' refers to the pointed end, which is never
bulbous and plastic.

tom

 

[Tom Anderson]

Typo. It's supposed to be "service" providers.

Okay, cool. I still don't get it, though - what errors are thrown by
misconfigured service providers? Do you mean things like LinkageError and
so on thrown when some service provider jar doesn't match up with the rest
of the environment?

tom

 

[Lew]

No, because clearly 'head' refers to the pointed end, which is never
bulbous and plastic.

Now you're just being weird.

 

[Mike Schilling]

If you guys are going to argue, at least pick theses that contradict each
other. For example, pick different numbers for how many angels can dance
on the head of a pin.

Angles have the attribute of position but not the attribute of extension, so
the answer is "all of them".

 

[Joshua Cranmer]

Okay, cool. I still don't get it, though - what errors are thrown by
misconfigured service providers? Do you mean things like LinkageError
and so on thrown when some service provider jar doesn't match up with
the rest of the environment?

java.xml.parsers.FactoryConfigurationError:
Thrown when a problem with configuration with the Parser Factories
exists. This error will typically be thrown when the class of a parser
factory specified in the system properties cannot be found or instantiated.

 

[Lew]

Yes.. except a computer language has very specific unambiguous
effects. Its not like speaking English or Klingon - its like casting a
spell that invokes a genie in the machine.

"Except"? Are you implying that formal logic has non-specific or ambiguous
effects?

With a computer language, especially when you want implementations to be
consistent and you want your process to perform what you mean when you
incant it from your magic words - having very clearly defined semantics
is extremely useful. Syntax is not enough. Ask Mickey Mouse what
happened when he got the syntax right but the semantics wrong when he
was a magician's apprentice.

"Mickey Mouse" - pfaugh! /The Sorcerer's Apprentice/ was around for quite a
while before Disney made a hack of it.

 

[Lew]

On 06/14/2010 11:21 AM,

Angles have the attribute of position but not the attribute of
extension, so the answer is "all of them".

That was a typo, right? You intended "angels" for "angles", I'm assuming.

My point was that the discussion of what constitutes a "reasonable" program in
this thread had devolved to the level at which theologians of a few centuries
ago stood when they debated how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.
Each proponent invented their own idea of the attributes of angels (such as
"position but not extension" - your evidence for that? Hm?) and argued based
on their particular fantasy definitions and axioms.

And the head is the opposite end from the point, btw. As anyone should know.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pin>

 

[Mike Schilling]

On 06/14/2010 11:21 AM,



That was a typo, right? You intended "angels" for "angles", I'm assuming.

It was the worst kind of typo, one introduced by a spellchecker.

My point was that the discussion of what constitutes a "reasonable"
program in this thread had devolved to the level at which theologians of a
few centuries ago stood when they debated how many angels could dance on
the head of a pin.

I think it's the wrong word entirely. "Normal" would do fine.

 

[Tom Anderson]

java.xml.parsers.FactoryConfigurationError:
Thrown when a problem with configuration with the Parser Factories exists.
This error will typically be thrown when the class of a parser factory
specified in the system properties cannot be found or instantiated.

Okay, got it, thanks.

I had no idea those were actually Errors. That seems completely mad.

tom

 

[Lew]

No.

But it seems that maybe I don't have a clear understanding of what you
mean by the "interpretation" of the "formal" part.

What do you mean?

Pretty much the same thing we mean when we interpret the results of a computer
program in terms of the human world.

 

[Lew]

Is this interpretation "in terms of the real world" specified by formal
logic? Because I was refering to this interpretation - and I had no idea
you had intended this interpretation was formally defined. I am still
not sure you meant that. Did you?

Well under five minutes of research illuminates the knowledge gap.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_(logic)>

WIYF

 

[Lew]

Huh? Thats what you meant? You interpret java programs as desribed in
this link?

Really?

Wow.

Wow.

I provided that link in direct response to your question about what
interpretation was in the context of formal logic since you seemed
ignorant of what that was.

You and I both interpret computer programs in that way.

Computer programs, from a perspective expressed upthread, are
statements of a formal logic. It was also stated upthread that
computer programs and formal logic have no meaning. That is not
true. They have meaning through their interpretation.

I really don't know how to be any clearer. Sorry. Please stop asking
the same question again and again.

 

[ClassCastException]

You insist on calling a private instance field "global".

If you write a program with a mutable field visible throughout the entire
program, then I consider it to be a global even if it's because your
program consists of a one-instance class with an instance field. A
*public* mutable instance field in a singleton is a global of sorts even
if the program has other user-written classes in it.

There are ways of writing Java so it doesn't look like it has a global
variable, and by stricter definitions of the term doesn't technically
have one, but still has the dependency patterns created by having one,
and it's really those dependency patterns that are "considered harmful".

 

[Mike Schilling]

If you write a program with a mutable field visible throughout the entire
program, then I consider it to be a global even if it's because your
program consists of a one-instance class with an instance field.

You can consider it whatever you like, but you'll be alone.

 

[Andreas Leitgeb]

You can consider it whatever you like, but you'll be alone.

Having code like:
enum Foo {
THE_INSTANCE;
public int my_non_static_var;
}
makes "Foo.THE_INSTANCE.my_non_static_var" equivalent to a static
with respect to most of the up- and downsides of real static
variables or global variables in C/C++.

That's how I understand CCE's point.

I do not claim, that it was relevant in the context, where the
field was contained in some non-static Session-object, which
is quite a different thing.

 

[Lew]

Having code like:
enum Foo {
THE_INSTANCE;
public int my_non_static_var;
}
makes "Foo.THE_INSTANCE.my_non_static_var" equivalent to a static
with respect to most of the up- and downsides of real static

"most" != all, and the (misnamed) 'my_non_static_var' is still not global.
For one thing, if there are more than one enum constant, there will be more
than one 'my_non_static_var'. "Global" != "shared".

variables or global variables in C/C++.

That's how I understand CCE's point.

There no doubt is a valid point in there somewhere, but to communicate it one
must use the language of the community. The /Princess Bride/ and /Through the
Looking-Glass/ quotes upthread should have illuminated that point.

I do not claim, that it was relevant in the context, where the
field was contained in some non-static Session-object, which
is quite a different thing.

There are dangers in shared variables, but that doesn't make them global.

Even if CCE's point had been relevant, it was still misstated. Instead of
making his point, he cause a shi*storm over the wrong terminology. Use the
right words.

There's glory for you.

 

[Andreas Leitgeb]

"most" != all, and the (misnamed) 'my_non_static_var' is still not global.
For one thing, if there are more than one enum constant, there will be more
than one 'my_non_static_var'. "Global" != "shared".

"global" is no Java concept in the first place. Java doesn't have global
variables. Even static members of public toplevel classes do not share
*all* of the properties of C/C++'s *global* variables.

C/C++'s global variables are generally frowned upon for a certain property
they have: *implicit* sharedness. Exactly that property is also on any field
of any object whose reference happens to be accessibly stored in any static
field. It seems perfectly valid to me to call non-static fields of statically
reachable objects "global-like", "globals under aliasname", "globals through
the backdoor", etc.

There no doubt is a valid point in there somewhere, but to communicate it one
must use the language of the community. The /Princess Bride/ and /Through the
Looking-Glass/ quotes upthread should have illuminated that point.

Humpty-dumpty does a good job of spelling out, what *everyone* actually
and inevitably does. And Alice does a good job of identifying the crucial
words, rather than just writing off humpty-dumpty as a crackpot ;-)

There are dangers in shared variables, but that doesn't make them global.

And by "global" you mean exactly that which you mean "global" to mean.