2016/4/8 1:41:47 -0700, [email protected]: > On 8 Apr 2016, at 00:03, Dohrmann, Steve <[email protected]> wrote: >> Just to clarify, it is incidental that the proposed Memory interface >> has only one method. We see the value of the interface as >> nominative; a new type that can be passed around to abstract various >> sources of ByteBuffer memory. > > I suspected as much, but would prefer that we gain more experience on > what this interface should be, and how it intersects with other > efforts, rather than introducing a skeletal version now.
I agree with Paul on this. It seems premature to introduce some kind of grand "Memory" abstraction. Without actual experience with a broad set of use cases we're almost certain to get it wrong. If what you want to do now can be expressed via IntFunction<ByteBuffer> then that seems a good basis for further experimentation. - Mark
