On 11/07/2012 05:04 PM, Raffaele P. Guidi wrote:
I understand your frustration, I have some smaller OSS projects out there that didn't catch any attention at all. Probably focusing on more specific subjects or just contributing to existing projects could be a way to get some satisfaction.
Yes, but from time to time, I'm able to merge or rather insert changes manually from the forked project, that's probably the best satisfaction right now. For instance iSCSI support seems to be on the way. And I think compared to some approaches our system is really cool, so hm, maybe sometime anyone recognizes it. For instance it borrows some ideas from ZFS/BtrFS. Anyway, running unit tests for new features sometimes are a satisfaction, too ;-)
Regarding my issue, it might sound strange, but I really don't know in which situations it's better to use a non-heap cache. Do you think it makes sense for a transaction-log? And/or for reading and caching data from disk? The transaction-log for the first version usually is very large, as it's most commonly the import of XML-documents. I think later changes in comparison are rather small (furthermore only deltas, that is changes to either the last full version (differential changes) or incremental changes (simply the changes from the current transaction) until the next full version of changed "pages" is written. If that helps to determine if it makes sense to use direct memory (different caches for reading and the write transaction-log). Do you as of now have any documentation besides Javadoc?
thank you & kind regards, Johannes
