Self-Mutation with Strategy Object

Discussion in 'Java' started by cppaddict, Sep 2, 2004.

  1. cppaddict

    cppaddict Guest

    I have a class whose behaviour changes with state. The current
    behaviour is determined by a Strategy object. Often, after a given
    Strategy executes, it needs to change the object's active strategy, so
    that on the next call a new Strategy will be called. The sample class
    below illustrates this concept, compiles, and works.

    public class Test {
    public static void main (String[] args) {
    Test t = new Test();

    private Strategy mStrategy = new Strategy1();

    public void doIt() {

    interface Strategy {
    public void doIt();
    private class Strategy1 implements Strategy {
    public void doIt() {
    mStrategy = new Strategy2();
    //Can this object be garbage collected here???
    System.out.println("Executing Strategy1");
    private class Strategy2 implements Strategy {
    public void doIt() {
    mStrategy = new Strategy1();
    System.out.println("Executing Strategy2");


    But question is: Is it safe? It seems that, where the code is marked
    with a comment, the currently executing strategy is no longer referred
    to by mStrategy, and so could possibly be garbage collected?

    Or is this perfectly legal, because the collector will not collect an
    object which is still executing code?

    Thanks for any explanation,
    cppaddict, Sep 2, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Or is this perfectly legal, because the collector will not collect an

    More precisely, an object is not executing code. The method is in the class,
    and exists independently of instances of the class. The object is a parameter
    (this) of the method. This means threre is a link to the instance, and
    therefore the instance cannot be garbage collected before the end of the method.


    The Nice programming language:
    Daniel Bonniot, Sep 2, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. cppaddict

    Chris Uppal Guest

    In the unlikely event that the platform as a whole (java compiler, JIT, GC
    implementation, etc) could /prove/ that no reference to the object called
    'this' could possibly be used, then it would be entitled to reclaim its
    storage, I think. But then, if it could prove that, then -- by definition --
    the code is still perfectly safe.

    However that is /very/ unlikely, and so I can't imagine any sane JVM
    implementor putting any effort at all into creating such an optimisation (I
    suppose that it might conceivably happen as a side-effect of some other

    To see why its so unlikely that it could ever prove such a thing, consider that
    System.out.println() might throw an unchecked exception, in which case the JVM
    would need a reference to the object known as 'this' to construct the stack

    Bottom line: it is completely safe.

    -- chris
    Chris Uppal, Sep 2, 2004
  4. But question is: Is it safe? It seems that, where the code is marked
    Not to worry...
    .... because this is indeed the case :)
    Well, objects don't exactly execute code, threads do, but let's not

    Michiel Konstapel, Sep 2, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.