I agree. Ivan, do you have objections? -Val
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[email protected]> wrote: > Ivan, > > The semantic now is very confusing, because localEvict does not evict to > off-heap, it just removes it from on-heap. The off-heap cache always has > the entry anyway. > > My vote would be to remove this method as I don't see anyone every needing > it. Perhaps a more useful method would be to flush the whole on-heap cache > altogether. > > D. > > On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Ivan Rakov <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Semantics in 2.0: if onheap cache enabled, method evicts entry from it. > If > > onheap cache is disabled (default case), implementation is no-op. > > Probably we should keep the method and add some note in javadoc. > > > > Best Regards, > > Ivan Rakov > > > > On 19.06.2017 17:01, Igor Sapego wrote: > > > >> What if user enables on-heap cache? > >> > >> Best Regards, > >> Igor > >> > >> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 3:34 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > [email protected] > >> > > >> wrote: > >> > >> Doesn't look useful to me. > >>> > >>> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 1:03 AM, Valentin Kulichenko < > >>> [email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> Folks, > >>>> > >>>> Does the subj make sense in 2.0? Before this method could be used to > >>>> > >>> evict > >>> > >>>> from on-heap memory to off-heap or swap. What are the semantics now? > >>>> > >>>> -Val > >>>> > >>>> > > >
