Hi, good point! As a convenience we could have something like: ByteBuffer#allocateDirect(Path path) ByteBuffer#allocateDirect(int size, Path path, Option options)
What is the logical difference between a memory and a byte buffer, as both provide the facility to save bytes? Couldn't Intel just provide a com.intel.memory.XPoint3DByteBuffer extends Bytebuffer class with usual constructors?
I do not see the point, why introducing a new named interface for a just existing solution. As a convenience we could have: ByteBuffer#allocateDirect(int size, Class<ByteBuffer> bufferType) If one wants to hide the class itself as similar with HeapByteBuffer: ByteBuffer#allocateDirect(int size, BufferProvider provider) -Ulf Am 01.04.2016 um 09:49 schrieb Andrew Haley:
I must be missing something. How is this different from exposing special memory via the filesystem and mapping a file? Andrew.
