+1
On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Christoph Engelbert <[email protected]>wrote: > At least both values are checked the same way: > public boolean apply( Pointer<V> input ) > { > return !input.isFree() && input.isExpired(); > } > > > And I guess "Pointer::isExpired" is implemented in the wrong way to > get both into account: > public boolean isExpired() > { > if ( expires > 0 || expiresIn > 0 ) > { > return ( expiresIn + created < currentTimeMillis() ); > } > return false; > } > > > The general idea sound good to me but maybe we could find better > names :-) They're not really selfspeaking from my understanding. > > Am 26.12.2012 15:13, schrieb Raffaele P. Guidi: > > The idea was: expiresIn 3 minutes (a time lapse) vs expires tomorrow > 08:00 > > (an absolute value). Not sure it actually makes sense anymore. > > > > Ciao, > > R > > Il giorno 26/dic/2012 14:50, "Christoph Engelbert" <[email protected] > > > > ha scritto: > > > >> Hey guys, > >> > >> I'm started documenting some of the missing interfaces / methods but > >> I stuck at all that fuzzy kinds of "expiresIn" and "expires". The > >> only thing about the last one is "-1" or > >> "AbstractMemoryManager::NEVER_EXPIRES" which is 0. So it seems that > >> keys never will expire at all. Did I missed something do we need > >> that second "expires"? > >> > >> Chris > >> > >> > > -- Jeff MAURY "Legacy code" often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling. - Bjarne Stroustrup http://www.jeffmaury.com http://riadiscuss.jeffmaury.com http://www.twitter.com/jeffmaury
