After some consideration, i implemented caching in my application, basically, using a hashtable that contains Class as a key (which is the class that corresponds to a particular cached entity and inherits from an abstract AbstractCache) and the concrete cache object that is made from that class, which seems quite convenient.
But is it a good idea to have Class as a Hashtable key, or should i probably use just the .canonicalName() or something like that instead?
If you never need to unload classes, it's probably not an issue. But since requirements may vary based on how your code is run (stand-alone Java app or deployed in web container, enterprise server etc.) it might be wiser not to do this. Classloader leaks are very nasty bugs to track down and solve.
Using the canonical name would seem to be a much better solution. Do keep in mind the other challenge, though: if you have multiple classloaders that might load the same class, those classes will still be considered incompatible. You wouldn't be able to differentiate them by their canonical name, while two identical classes loaded by different classloaders would yield two distinct Class instances and could be used as keys in the same map.
If you don't have very specific classloader constraints or requirements, go with the canonical name. If you're deploying as anything else than a stand-alone Java application, be vary wary of the implications.
Sounds fine to me. I have done this in the past. Classes are effectively immutable singletons so there's no chance of using the "wrong" instance of a Class.
The only time there would be an issue is if there were multiple ClassLoaders involved but this is rare in most apps.
Related
I have a Java class that gets instantiated by a third-party application as an extension. That is, as per the 3rd party software design, customers like us register our Java class to their application and their application will install it to execute custom logic at the right place and time.
Our custom Java class needs to marshal and unmarshal XML, for which it uses JAXB. It therefore needs a JAXB context.
I naively called JAXBContext.newInstance(MyClass.class) on every call and not-so-quickly discovered that that's a well known recipe for a memory leak. The common prescription is to make one (or at most only a few) JAXB contexts to share among your whole application.
Fine, except the third party application that invokes my class makes each invocation on a new ClassLoader instance that is private to that invocation.
So, even if I put the JAXBContext in a static field or static HashMap<>, it would still be private to the invocation!
QUESTION
How can I, in a class that is instantiated from a private ClassLoader instance, create a singleton to be shared across the JVM?
I am thinking along two possible lines, but I'd like advice on how to make either of them work or any completely different approach anyone has.
The three ideas I had were:
Find somewhere in a JVM class where I could write an object. E.g., if System.setProperty could write instance of Object instead of just String, the idea would be to create the JAXB context and put it in a property, since it is sure that System will already have been instantiated and that the custom classloader instance would inherit it. But System.setProperty does not take an Object value, so I don't know a practical way to do this.
Somehow force a class to load on the parent or root classloader where I could store by JAXB context. I don't know how to do this.
Use a ThreadLocal to store the JAXBContexts. I don't think each invocation is a brand new thread (they're probably reused from a thread pool), so this could maybe be the way to limit my contexts. But how to create the ThreadLocal variable so its shared across the instances? It seems like this leaves me with the same problem.
It sounds like your code is sandboxed with in the 3rd party application. So using static or ThreadLocal won't help since it will only exist within the same classloader, and if that classloader is changed... then the context is lost.
The closest solution is to inject your context into the application code. This is not the best idea, since it can be affected by outsiders and have unexpected consequences. Do note that this means a value you created in your classloader will remain in the application and thus the creating classloader will never be garbage collected. There's also the problem of where JAXB jar comes from. I assume from your code and not the 3rd party. So that jar is loaded each time in a different classloader, so to share an object from there might be a problem and require some proxy.
Honestly there can be so many unforeseen results.
The best idea is to ask the 3rd party to provide you with some API to enable that.
Before continuing, let's see other options:
Is there a replacement for using JAXB? Something that won't present the same memory leak problem.
Is the memory leak that serious? What if there is a temporary memory leak until an API is provided by the 3rd party application.
If you really want to try to inject the object, I'd be happy to help. But, from experience, these kinds of things are messy.
In trying to learn about Java class loaders from Wikipedia, I think I can see why they have the three major class loaders:
1) Bootstrap class loader
2) Extensions class loader
3) System class loader
They go on to say you can define your own classloader. I'm not sure I see the value in defining your own, but the following quote from Wikipedia really makes me wonder:
The most complex JAR hell problems arise in circumstances that take
advantage of the full complexity of the classloading system. A Java
program is not required to use only a single "flat" classloader, but
instead may be composed of several (potentially very many) nested,
cooperating classloaders. Classes loaded by different classloaders may
interact in complex ways not fully comprehended by a developer,
leading to errors or bugs that are difficult to analyze, explain, and
resolve.
If it's so complex, why bother with it? Shouldn't the three already-defined classloaders be enough?
(And yes, for those curious, I did run into a ClassCastException that I didn't think should have happened, much like the graphic labelled Figure 2. Class identity crisis. I'm trying to understand the background is all.)
Certain use cases require custom classloaders.
A few examples:
Dynamically adding new folders/jars to be loadable. (Without restarting the whole application).
Dynamically removing folder/jars from being loadable.
Runtime bytecode generation with javassist.
Multiple (actually used at the same time) versions of the same classes in the same application/jvm
I am creating a web front end using an existing back end containing several singleton classes. The DataStore is initialized by passing a user object into it, which is fine in a desktop application environment where the app is launched once on each machine, but will not work in a server side application designed to cater for multiple users.
The database guys are reluctant to change the service layer and remove these singletons to allow an instance per user, or allow a single instance of a service layer object to serve multiple users. This is with good reason, the desktop app has been in use for 10 years and changes could have serious side effects for the desktop app.
I have been asked to investigate using classloaders to create multiple instances of the singletons. I am not comfortable with this idea at all, hacking singletons seems like bad practice, but changing the service layer could take months of work.
I have tested this out already by putting two identical WAR files of my app (with different file names) into Tomcat. Tomcat creates a classloader for each webapp and they worked just fine separately. I only encountered problems when the singletons used System.setProperty/System.getProperty, which is to be expected as the System class comes from a classloader much higher up in the tree.
To get this separation within a single webapp, it starts to get a bit complicated. It seems I would have to create a different classloader for each session, and use the classloader to load either all the classes in the whole service layer or just the ones which are singletons and their dependencies.
The problem comes when I'm thinking about how to use these objects in a session in a servlet. Because each Servlet has a single instance within a Tomcat, getting objects from the session and casting them will not be straightforward. Eg, to get a DataStore object from the session, I would have to cast it to the correct DataStore class loaded by the correct ClassLoader, since a single class loaded by two different ClassLoaders counts as two completely separate classes.
I have read that using ClassLoaders can cause all sorts of problems with memory leaks if they are not used carefully, and from the sounds of this, if I have 500 users, that is a lot of classloaders and classes loaded by classloaders. Won't I then have also have issues with PermGen?
I suppose from this large explanation, I really have 4 questions:
Hacking a singleton with classloaders in a webapp. Creating potentially hundreds of instances of the same classes designed to be singletons. Is that a terrible idea? So terrible I shouldn't contemplate it?
What is the best way to implement this if I absolutely have to?
How do I cater for casting in a Servlet, if I want to get and set objects into a session?
Will I end up with issues with memory leaks, and PermGen space?
I would really appreciate any suggestions. Thanks :)
It's not ideal, but I don't think it's terrible. In practice, it's not much worse than loading multiple versions of the same class (even without singletons), and that's becoming increasingly common in complex application server environments, particularly those with OSGi.
It's hard to say which approach is best, but to begin with, I would start by creating child class loaders of your web application class loader. Arrange to load implementation classes in the child class loaders (i.e., the ones with the singleton), and it possible, have the implementation class implement an interface that is loaded from the web application class loader.
By loading the interface from the web application class loader. This is basically the same approach that the application server itself is using to invoke your HttpServlet: the interface is loaded by the server, so it can refer to it directly, but the implementation is in a child class loader for your application. You're just creating a secondary layer of interface/impl split for your own convenience.
You'll end up with memory leaks if you store references to the child class loader (or its loaded classes, or instantiated objects from those classes) in a "parent" class loader (e.g., if the singleton registers an MBean, which causes it to get referenced in a JVM-wide object), but that's no different from if you weren't creating child class loaders. If you're dynamically creating/destroying these singletons (thus child class loaders), you'll have to take care that you don't retain references to those child class loaders (or classes/objects) longer than necessary. PermGen is probably more problematic. If you can run with Java 8, that's gone away; otherwise, you might have to increase the default PermGen size depending on how many of these class loaders/singletons you need to create.
I have two different webapps, and each load the same class A with different classloader. When I put one instance in the session and then get it from the other webapp, a ClassCastException is thrown.
For example, in webapp A, I store a in the session, then in webapp B, I get the a from the session and cast it to A, the ClassCastException is thrown.
Is there a way to resolve this?
Is there a way to resolve this?
Basically no.
As far as the JLS is concerned, the types are different types, and there is no way that the JVM will allow you to pretend otherwise. For instance, the classes could have different code and different object layouts. If you could trick the JVM into treating the types as the same, you would be able to blow away JVM runtime safety. That way lies insanity.
The solution is to make sure that you don't have two different class loaders loading the same class. In the context of Tomcat, this means that if two or more webapps need to share instances of a class, then that class must be defined in a classloader that is common to both; e.g. put the JAR file in the $CATALINA_HOME/lib or $CATALINA_HOME/common directory.
If there is a technical reason why the classes have to be loaded by different classloaders (maybe because the classes really are different), then you could work around the problem by defining an interface that both versions of the class implement, and then programming to the interface rather than the implementation class. Of course, the interface needs to be loaded by a shared classloader ... or else you run into the same problem again.
You should avoid this situation, basically - either put both bits of functionality in the same webapp, or move the library containing class A into an appropriate location such that only one classloader will be used. Two classes loaded by different classloaders are entirely distinct in the JVM - you simply won't be able to cast between them.
See the Tomcat classloader documentation for more details about the various classloaders used. It looks like you'd want to put this common class into the common classloader area. As the documentation notes, this is pretty unusual, but if you really want to share an object between two webapps (which is also unusual) it's probably the easiest way forward.
You can't. Two classes loaded by different classloaders are different.
Perhaps you can serialize the shared objects?
I'm not necessarily advocating this approach, but then again that's what serialization essentially does --- you serialize from some JVM or ClassLoader X and load it in (deserialize) it into another JVM/ClassLoader Y...
You can't cast two object from different classes even if the classes have the same package name and signature, however you can copy the data from one to another simply by using apache bean utils library, BeanUtils.copyProperties(o1, o2);
This is possible with a workaround.
While it is true that you can't cast an object from one class loaded by classloader A to the same class loaded by classloader B (classes with the same name are not compatible if loaded under different classloaders as explained here), in a webapp container such as Jetty or Tomcat, you can load that class once in a parent classloader, which will be used by all webapps in the JVM. Each webapp classloader will defer to the shared (parent) classloader for the class definition and casting it back and forth works just fine.
For example, with Jetty, use WebAppContext.addSystemClass() as described here.
I'm currently wondering what the actual overhead, in the JVM, is for loading extra classes which are never used.
We have code which iterates all the classes in the class path to find classes which implement a certain interface, we then load them.
This allows custom classes to be simply dropped in a directory and they get loaded and registered.
The side affect is that we hit every class in the class path, causing the classes to load. What would be the affect on the JVMs memory?
Does simply loading classes affect the memory much at all?
As usual, I would advise measuring this for your particular scenario.
Having said that, I'm not sure I'd advise scanning the whole classpath. If you don't control the classpath (it's your customer's, or similar), potentially they could add anything to it, and your process is going to scan anything they drop into their classpath (possibly unrelated to your app).
I'd suggest that you nominate only certain directories/repositories that classes can be uploaded to, and that way you'll restrict the classpath scanning and reduce the chances of inadvertently picking up stuff you don't intend to.
If you use a separate ClassLoader to load those classes and are very careful not to create any references to those classes or instances of them, then when the ClassLoader becomes eligible for garbage collection, so do the classes.
Thus, you could avoid unnecessarily clogging your PermGen space by doing 2 passes with separate ClassLoaders: one to load all the classes and identify those you want to keep, and another to actually use them.
Won't using ClassLoaders in this way have unintended side-effects? Like running static initialisers and so on.
You could use the ServiceLoader mechanism, but if that doesn't suit, you can inspect classes without using ClassLoaders - byte manipulation libraries like BCEL and ASM can be used to just inspect classes.
Yes, this forces the VM to load the class file and examine it (which can be a performance problem). Moreover, if you're using a Sun VM, then these classes will stay in memory forever. the Sun VM puts classes in the so called "PermGen" space which is never garbage collected unless you specify a special option.
So this is generally a bad idea but there are two simple workarounds:
Check the name of the class (the filename). Repeat the name of the interface in the name, so you can easily notice what you have to load and what not.
Use two directories. One contains normal classes, the other the one all those which you want to always load.
A "far out there" suggestion:
could you do the same thing but without actually using the VM? the class file spec is documented, couldn't you write your own app to just read the class files and figure out if they implement your interface/whatever without actually loading them?
That would get you the ability to scan any directories but without any worry of loading classes or static intializers or anything like that.