Mailing-List: contact directmemory-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: directmemory-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of raffaele.p.guidi@gmail.com
 designates 74.125.82.175 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CALxZ3YxvdAr2+Uina1v8G-uS1i9NVzmafJQofn1Kv2urBVZcDw@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CALxZ3YxvdAr2+Uina1v8G-uS1i9NVzmafJQofn1Kv2urBVZcDw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 19:19:19 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CAAnVOG3wgx3mOHRKWY=XpKKVncsPapkyjo5pGpkqfXPyo-9LrA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Eviction at MemoryBuffer vs at CacheService level
From: "Raffaele P. Guidi" <raffaele.p.guidi@gmail.com>
To: directmemory-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6de01379f70ef04b53f27db

--0016e6de01379f70ef04b53f27db
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Totally agreed. It's a long due refactoring
Il giorno 29/dic/2011 17:33, "Benoit Perroud" <benoit@noisette.ch> ha
scritto:

> Hi All,
>
> I thought at the evicition policy. It is actually done at MemoryBuffer
> level, but this leads to a problem :
>
> A pointer could be evicted, but the cache still reference it. It seems
> to be processed correctly by the CacheService.
>
> My point hier is we should try to do a better separation of the
> responsabilities, in order to have layers that could be reused
> independently :
>
> - MemoryService should only try to reduce fragmentation (for example
> using the read only buffer (see DIRECTMEMORY-9))
> - CacheService should allow pluggable eviction (LRU, LFU, ...)
>
> What is your thoughts on this ?
>
> Thanks
>
> Benoit.
>

--0016e6de01379f70ef04b53f27db--