On 9/3/14 8:53 AM, Michael Berman wrote: > Thanks for the feedback Phil! > > >> One way to do this would be to have the current property be a cap on >> the total number of tests performed, but the new one basically >> control the number done per key. So if, e.g. numTestsPerEvictionRun >> is 12, numEvictionTestsPerKey (or whatever we decide to call it) is >> 3, the evictor does 3 tests for each key and then moves on to the >> next immediately, up to 12. I guess if there are fewer than >> numEvictionTestsPerKey, the evictor just moves on. If the evictor >> gets all the way through before numTestsPerEcvictionRun it could >> wrap around or just stop. Would something like that work for you? >> Anyone have any better ideas? > > "No more than numEvictionTestsPerKey per key and no more than > numTestsPerEvictionRun total" would definitely address my use case (in my > case, I'll just set numTestsPerEvictionRun to Int.MAX or something), but I > do wonder if that's what everyone would want. I could imagine expecting the > behavior to be "At least numEvictionTestsPerKey per key and at least > numTestsPerEvictionRun total" (which would be the behavior if we wrapped > around instead of just stopping). I suppose it's easy to make it clear > which behavior we have in documentation, but that presumes the one I want > is likely to be universally more useful than the alternative. Think I can > make that assumption? We would have to rename numTestsPerEvictionRun if we were to change it to mean a min. I would personally not like that. I would rather leave it defined as is and just have the new property control when the evictor moves from key to key. Another option would be to have the new property override the old one - so if numEvictionTestsPerKey is set (i.e. not the default), then numTestsPerEvictionRun is ignored and the evictor is controlled completely by the second one.
Personally, I would favor the first of my suggestions above - numTestsPerEvictionRun determines the total number of tests performed and numEvictionTestsPerKey determines how many tests are done in each key set before moving to the next key. Not having a cap on the total number of tests performed is dangerous, as there is no bound to the number of keys so just doing numEvictionTestsPerKey for every key each evictor run could result in very long-running evictors. It would be good to get some other opinions on this. Anyone have ideas / preferences? Phil > > With respect to naming: > numEvictionTestsPerKey is definitely more concise and readable than > numTestsPerEvictionRunPerKey, but I wonder if it makes it less obvious that > it's tightly connected to numTestsPerEvictionRun. In code completion, the > setters wouldn't appear next to each other, which might hurt > discoverability. Maybe just referencing each other in docs is enough to > mitigate that. Any votes one way or the other? > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
