Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
We don't like LRU because it inevitably leads to locking in get(). We are,
however,
experimenting with lock-free eviction algorithms such as clock-pro, so that you
can
get the boundedness you desire without sacrificing concurrency.
Original comment by kevin...@gmail.com
on 13 Sep 2009 at 7:33
that works for me.
looking closer at my request, I've noticed there are 2 enhancements:
boundedness and
a hook for cleaning up evicted resources. are you ok with both being here, or
should
I open another issue for cleanup?
Original comment by adrian.f...@gmail.com
on 13 Sep 2009 at 8:07
Feel free to split them up. We are working on them separately.
Original comment by yrfselrahc@gmail.com
on 13 Sep 2009 at 1:19
Original comment by kevin...@gmail.com
on 17 Sep 2009 at 4:50
Original comment by kevin...@gmail.com
on 17 Sep 2009 at 4:51
Original comment by kevin...@gmail.com
on 17 Sep 2009 at 5:45
Original comment by kevin...@gmail.com
on 17 Sep 2009 at 5:52
Kevin, not sure why you merged. There are two distinct features: bounded size,
and removal notifcations.
Original comment by yrfselrahc@gmail.com
on 17 Sep 2009 at 7:05
the accident was my changing the summary on this one at the same time as I
dup'd it
out. Someone should still file a separate issue about the removal notification.
Original comment by kevin...@gmail.com
on 17 Sep 2009 at 7:45
Given that we already have issue #167 to track the bounded size, let's use this
issue to track removal
notification, as it has a perfect use case.
Original comment by yrfselrahc@gmail.com
on 17 Sep 2009 at 8:02
I guess the description here does focus more on the boundedness, so I'll move
this back into 167 (sorry Kevin)
and create a new one for removal.
Original comment by yrfselrahc@gmail.com
on 18 Sep 2009 at 12:26
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
adrian.f...@gmail.com
on 13 Sep 2009 at 4:43