Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE70A200BAC for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 13:10:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id AD125160AEE; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 11:10:21 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 284C1160ACA for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 13:10:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 1414 invoked by uid 500); 26 Oct 2016 11:10:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@groovy.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@groovy.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@groovy.apache.org Received: (qmail 1404 invoked by uid 99); 26 Oct 2016 11:10:20 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd3-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 11:10:20 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd3-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd3-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id AA4CF180666 for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 11:10:19 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd3-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 3.472 X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.472 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[FORGED_HOTMAIL_RCVD2=1.187, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.972, URI_HEX=1.313] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-lw-us.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd3-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.10]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9vNKBbhcLMhD for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 11:10:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mbob.nabble.com (mbob.nabble.com [162.253.133.15]) by mx1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTP id F17325F479 for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 11:10:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from static.162.255.23.22.macminivault.com (unknown [162.255.23.22]) by mbob.nabble.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3148E34855DC for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 04:02:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 04:10:08 -0700 (MST) From: "Daniel.Sun" To: dev@groovy.incubator.apache.org Message-ID: <1477480208975-5736329.post@n5.nabble.com> In-Reply-To: <93c6ec65-15df-49c0-d80c-8d731b3c48f7@gmx.org> References: <93c6ec65-15df-49c0-d80c-8d731b3c48f7@gmx.org> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL]Refine the implementation of LRUCache MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit archived-at: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 11:10:21 -0000 Hi Jochen, > Could somebody double check the file size? 943.78k... but I find groovy is lack of a high performance LRU cache currently, which is important for Groovy. > Then of course there is the question why we do not use ConcurrentHashMap > instead.... because? Because ConcurrentHashMap does not supply any function to remove oldest element automatically :) Cheers, Daniel.Sun -- View this message in context: http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/PROPOSAL-Refine-the-implementation-of-LRUCache-tp5736323p5736329.html Sent from the Groovy Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.