Yay for the segfault! :-D Il giorno 24/ott/2012 23:04, "Christoph Engelbert" <[email protected]> ha scritto:
> Am 24.10.2012 21:00, schrieb Olivier Lamy: > > 2012/10/24 Raffaele P. Guidi <[email protected]>: > >> Really, really good. Well, if all tests pass why not starting pushing > the > >> changes to svn? :-) > > +1 :-) > > Ok back to topic I have added the JUnit extension and a lot of tests > are failing for the Unsafe implementation and I get a JVM SegFault > too :) I think there's something more to do. I'll commit it to the > SVN as far as the tests passing. > > >> Ciao, > >> R > >> Il giorno 24/ott/2012 11:35, "Christoph Engelbert" < > [email protected]> > >> ha scritto: > >> > >>> Hey, > >>> > >>> I added the codebase to support the existing UnsafeMemoryManager and > >>> usage of the pointers. > >>> > >>> > https://github.com/noctarius/directmemory/commit/dd666b673596c71bccf3d999da4da8c967370538 > >>> > >>> Chris > >>> > >>> Am 24.10.2012 09:21, schrieb Raffaele P. Guidi: > >>>> 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 > >>>>>>> > >>> > > > > > >
