I have opened a jira for this issue: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-1665
I will submit a patch. Bill On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Jonathan Ellis <jbel...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes, we should add a close method. > On Oct 26, 2010 9:14 AM, "Bill Au" <bill.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I have discovered a JMX threads leak in NodeProbe. Here is the original > > email thread on the user mailing list: > > > > http://www.mail-archive.com/u...@cassandra.apache.org/msg06764.html > > > > NodePorbe creats a JMXConnector but never calls JMXConnector.close(). The > > use of a JMXConnector in NodeProbe is not exposed in its API. So without > > changing the API, my initial thought is to add a finalize() method to > > NodeProbe in which JMXConnector.close() is called. But I am not sure if > > this is the best solution. Using a finalizer many lead to memory leak > since > > in this case NodeProbe will not be garbage collector until its finalizer > is > > called, but in Java the finalize() method is not guaranteed to be called > at > > any particular time. We probably don't want to create a new JMXConnector > > for each operation. Should we add a close() method to NodeProbe which > users > > of NodeProbe has to call to avoid using a finalizer? > > > > Bill >
