incubator-directmemory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael André Pearce <michael.andre.pea...@me.com>
Subject Re: changing the DM behavior at runtime
Date Sun, 26 Feb 2012 01:14:42 GMT
Doug Lee and using hashes, though i still cant remember for the life of me where ive seen this
atm. (it cant be too distant past if i remember the guys name)


On 26 Feb 2012, at 01:06, Simone Tripodi wrote:

> +1 concurrency is still an open issue in DM
> 
> best,
> -Simo
> 
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> http://www.99soft.org/
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 1:33 AM, Michael André Pearce
> <michael.andre.pearce@me.com> wrote:
>> Also can i suggest locking on the key for put/updates/deletes? avoids someone getting
a key whilst it is in transitive state of being updated by another, ive seen before a fancy
way of doing this, avoiding a lock for every key, will have to try remember.
>> 
>> On 26 Feb 2012, at 00:24, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi all guys,
>>> 
>>> I had a chat with Benoit in another thread and I realized no one of
>>> our class is Thread safe - what do you think of actual behavior that
>>> every component accepts a setter for any member - that could cause
>>> strange behaviors at runtime?
>>> 
>>> I would analyze wich components can be converted to immutable - IIUC
>>> Benoit agreed with me on having some PointerImpl members as immutable,
>>> i.e. CacheService#setMap( ConcurrentMap<K, Pointer<V>> map ) means
>>> dropping all the already stored data :)
>>> 
>>> Thoughts?
>>> best,
>>> -Simo
>>> 
>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>>> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
>>> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
>>> http://www.99soft.org/
>> 


Mime
View raw message