just put together a test using the UnsafeStore (there's already one available) and see how it works
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 6:51 AM, Christoph Engelbert <[email protected]>wrote: > Morning Raffaele, > > at the moment the store is not used but it should be easy to use the > pointers instead of a long for the memory address. I just need to > implement this. > > I also thought about some kind of a virtual memory file for swapping > purposes if the object should be just be removed from the cache but > wasn't used for a longer time (like the normal swap data). > > Cheers Chris > > Am 24.10.2012 00:41, schrieb Raffaele P. Guidi: > > Looks good - how does it play with the unsafe based store? > > Il giorno 23/ott/2012 21:21, "Christoph Engelbert" <[email protected] > > > > ha scritto: > > > >> Hey guys, > >> > >> some time before I mentioned that it would be nice to have a real > >> buffer interface to against. The actual implementation only had > >> ByteBuffer when using non Unsafe MemoryAllocators. > >> > >> I started to add a clean interface, derived from the nettys > >> ChannelBuffer, to be used as the main accesspoint to every memory > >> access no matter what the underlying access layer looks like. > >> > >> At the moment I'm working against the GIT fork on GitHub and I'll > >> like to see your opinion and ideas about the MemoryBuffer interface > >> and the general idea. > >> > >> The two important commits are: > >> > >> > https://github.com/noctarius/directmemory/commit/5b3cf11af0e71f5961b1bfcf69b10f3cb9388ff6 > >> > >> > https://github.com/noctarius/directmemory/commit/05082a6aa2cac91bb2ab6e104837bb1431dae90d > >> > >> Looking forward to your replies especially because I'm not yet sure > >> how the general way of new features is :-) > >> > >> Cheers Chris > >> > >
