directmemory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christoph Engelbert <noctar...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Expiration of keys / pointers
Date Wed, 26 Dec 2012 16:43:30 GMT
Someone has a good idea what to call an absolute and a relative
expiration whereas the last one is relative to the last access?

Am 26.12.2012 16:04, schrieb Jeff MAURY:
> +1
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Christoph Engelbert
> <noctarius@apache.org>wrote:
>
>> At least both values are checked the same way:
>>         public boolean apply( Pointer<V> input )
>>         {
>>             return !input.isFree() && input.isExpired();
>>         }
>>
>>
>> And I guess "Pointer::isExpired" is implemented in the wrong way to
>> get both into account:
>>     public boolean isExpired()
>>     {
>>         if ( expires > 0 || expiresIn > 0 )
>>         {
>>             return ( expiresIn + created < currentTimeMillis() );
>>         }
>>         return false;
>>     }
>>
>>
>> The general idea sound good to me but maybe we could find better
>> names :-) They're not really selfspeaking from my understanding.
>>
>> Am 26.12.2012 15:13, schrieb Raffaele P. Guidi:
>>> The idea was: expiresIn 3 minutes (a time lapse) vs expires tomorrow
>> 08:00
>>> (an absolute value). Not sure it actually makes sense anymore.
>>>
>>> Ciao,
>>>     R
>>> Il giorno 26/dic/2012 14:50, "Christoph Engelbert" <noctarius@apache.org
>>>
>>> ha scritto:
>>>
>>>> Hey guys,
>>>>
>>>> I'm started documenting some of the missing interfaces / methods but
>>>> I stuck at all that fuzzy kinds of "expiresIn" and "expires". The
>>>> only thing about the last one is "-1" or
>>>> "AbstractMemoryManager::NEVER_EXPIRES" which is 0. So it seems that
>>>> keys never will expire at all. Did I missed something do we need
>>>> that second "expires"?
>>>>
>>>> Chris
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>


Mime
View raw message