Re: [Libreoffice] UNO Object Life Cycle question

On 01/05/2012 03:52 PM, Tomas Hlavaty wrote:
> I'm implementing
> <http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Uno/Remote/Specifications/Uno_Remote_Protocol#Object_Life_Cycle>
> and can't make much sense of it.  It seems to me that the spec is
> contradictory:
>
>    ...  unless it considers as bridged in any tuple<o, t'>, where t' is
>    a subtype of t (including t itself).  If the same tuple appears
>    multiple times in the data of a message, the corresponding reference
>    count is incremented multiple times.
>
>    ...
>
>    The optimization rule (to not increment the reference count for<o, t>
>    when<o, t>  itself or some subtype tuple<o, t'>  is considered as
>    bridged in) is broken...
>
> The last quoted paragraph:
>
>    to not increment the reference count for<o, t>  when<o, t>  itself or
>    some subtype tuple<o, t'>  is considered as bridged in
>
> doesn't sound like reference counting.  If the client fetches XInterface
> first, then the reference count can only ever be maximum 1.  It somehow
> seems very dependent on what types the client fetches in what order.
> Also this rule contradicts the sentense:
>
>    If the same tuple appears multiple times in the data of a message, the
>    corresponding reference count is incremented multiple times.

No, the sending side increments its ref count multiple times for a given 
tuple it sends, unless it earlier received that tuple from the other 
side (i.e., it is "bridged in" at this side), in which case it does not 
increment the ref count at all.

> Is this spec still valid?

Yes.

> I implemented the algorithm according to my understanding of the above
> spec reducing memory leaks by 1/2 but I still get many leaks.  If I'm
> strict and ignore the broken optimization rule, I get LO crashing after
> some time, likely because of double release.  I'm still missing
> something to get refcounting exactly the way LO does it.

This is tricky shit, indeed.

> Why is the reference counting algorithm dependent on the casted type in
> the first place?  Shouldn't the reference count be interesting only in
> connection with oid and not<oid,type>?

This is due to the design decision that an object can be revealed across 
a bridge piecemeal:  If the remote side first only requests XInterface, 
it creates a proxy only for XInterface.  If it later also requests some 
derived XFoo, it creates an additional proxy for XFoo.  (If it then 
requests some intermediate XBar from within the hierarchy chain 
XInterface - XBar - XFoo, the existing XFoo proxy will already take care 
of that.)  There are individual ref counts for the different proxies, in 
order to be able to release individual proxies as early as possible. 
But this design is not necessarily the best one, indeed.  (And having 
multiple proxies representing the same UNO object only works because UNO 
object identity is checked with special functionality in the various 
language bindings, e.g., not with plain == in Java UNO.  Another 
questionable design decision.)

> UNO is a distributed protocol.  The links should be considered
> unreliable.  Is there a mechanism that when a link between the server
> and client bridge breaks, the server releases the resources properly, or
> do we get/expect memory leaks?

In some sense this is a QoI issue.  But existing URP endpoints (binary 
and Java) do note if a connection is broken and locally release the 
objects they have bridged out across that connection.

> Also, it is not exactly clear at which point in time the release message
> should be sent.  One such point in time could be when the client is
> finished with the session.  At that point, the client needs to send at
> least as many release messages as the number of all the incremented
> refcounts it noticed according to this algorithm.  That is potentially
> many messages, slowing down the session considerably.  Is there a way to
> simply end the session and declare all references not used anymore in
> one go/message without causing leaks in the server?

Release messages should generally be sent as early as possible, so that 
the remote side can clean up garbage as early as possible.  (With the 
above said, just lowering a connection without releasing references 
before should actually also happen to work, even if it is not good style 
to defer release messages unduly.)

> Thank you,

Good luck!

Stephan