Someone has a good idea what to call an absolute and a relative expiration whereas the last one is relative to the last access?
Am 26.12.2012 16:04, schrieb Jeff MAURY: > +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 >>>> >>>> >> >
