Mailing-List: contact dev-help@directmemory.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@directmemory.apache.org
Message-ID: <50883AF1.4040805@apache.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 21:01:05 +0200
From: Christoph Engelbert <noctarius@apache.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
 rv:16.0) Gecko/20121010 Thunderbird/16.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@directmemory.apache.org
Subject: Re: MemoryBuffer interface
References: <5086ED99.4050005@apache.org>
 <CAAnVOG3jCsaiw3s7Gii1ihNkXTywkW0+hXa46t0FQHO8hSrXOQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <508773C7.7070009@apache.org>
 <CAAnVOG0GCizHmXC3GssYGHt=g-k+t5qgDy=0wAhDR8Zp6gtgBA@mail.gmail.com>
 <5087B5D5.7010000@apache.org>
 <CAAnVOG2=3Ztazvmx4n8eRP8ZswiNHUYPUpYr-rXMAFJ5qi0Kkw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoyBqQq2TZR0mQoz0hWjwdgJKtCRcT5asRBhRb9c_MGxMMpGw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAPoyBqQq2TZR0mQoz0hWjwdgJKtCRcT5asRBhRb9c_MGxMMpGw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Am 24.10.2012 21:00, schrieb Olivier Lamy:
> 2012/10/24 Raffaele P. Guidi <raffaele.p.guidi@gmail.com>:
>> Really, really good. Well, if all tests pass why not starting pushing the
>> changes to svn? :-)
> +1 :-)

I guess there are no Unsafe unittests at the moment ;-) The other
tests already passed.

>> Ciao,
>>    R
>> Il giorno 24/ott/2012 11:35, "Christoph Engelbert" <noctarius@apache.org>
>> ha scritto:
>>
>>> Hey,
>>>
>>> I added the codebase to support the existing UnsafeMemoryManager and
>>> usage of the pointers.
>>>
>>> https://github.com/noctarius/directmemory/commit/dd666b673596c71bccf3d999da4da8c967370538
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>> Am 24.10.2012 09:21, schrieb Raffaele P. Guidi:
>>>> just put together a test using the UnsafeStore (there's already one
>>>> available) and see how it works
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 6:51 AM, Christoph Engelbert
>>>> <noctarius@apache.org>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Morning Raffaele,
>>>>>
>>>>> at the moment the store is not used but it should be easy to use the
>>>>> pointers instead of a long for the memory address. I just need to
>>>>> implement this.
>>>>>
>>>>> I also thought about some kind of a virtual memory file for swapping
>>>>> purposes if the object should be just be removed from the cache but
>>>>> wasn't used for a longer time (like the normal swap data).
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers Chris
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 24.10.2012 00:41, schrieb Raffaele P. Guidi:
>>>>>> Looks good - how does it play with the unsafe based store?
>>>>>> Il giorno 23/ott/2012 21:21, "Christoph Engelbert" <
>>> noctarius@apache.org
>>>>>> ha scritto:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hey guys,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> some time before I mentioned that it would be nice to have a real
>>>>>>> buffer interface to against. The actual implementation only had
>>>>>>> ByteBuffer when using non Unsafe MemoryAllocators.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I started to add a clean interface, derived from the nettys
>>>>>>> ChannelBuffer, to be used as the main accesspoint to every memory
>>>>>>> access no matter what the underlying access layer looks like.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At the moment I'm working against the GIT fork on GitHub and I'll
>>>>>>> like to see your opinion and ideas about the MemoryBuffer interface
>>>>>>> and the general idea.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The two important commits are:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> https://github.com/noctarius/directmemory/commit/5b3cf11af0e71f5961b1bfcf69b10f3cb9388ff6
>>> https://github.com/noctarius/directmemory/commit/05082a6aa2cac91bb2ab6e104837bb1431dae90d
>>>>>>> Looking forward to your replies especially because I'm not yet sure
>>>>>>> how the general way of new features is :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers Chris
>>>>>>>
>>>
>
>