On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Raffaele P. Guidi <[email protected]> wrote: > I tried to clarify on this before (see the proposed roadmap): I started with > off heap, then tried to do too much doing a complete cache solution (it > didn't work well), then decided to focus again on off heap and did a > complete rewrite. In short the proposal is to keep focus on the off heap > part but add some basic cache features to ease and spread adoption.
Oops, Sorry missed that. This is cool and really help in focussing our energies :) Apology for the noise. > > Uhm I suspect the roadmap has got lost in the switch to confluence but it > should be in an email to dev as well, gotta look for it and put in the wiki > again. This would be good, as people shall look for this later as well. > > Ciao, > R > > On Tuesday, October 18, 2011, Ashish <[email protected]> wrote: >> Folks, >> >> Sorry for this simple questions, but whenever I read the project >> description of DirectMemory it slightly confuses me. >> >> The confusion stems from the statement "Apache DirectMemory is a multi >> layered cache implementation..", which I interpret as DirectMemory is >> a cache implementation, which features offheap store meaning stores >> elements outside heap. >> >> So confusion is around >> 1. Are we going to have a Cache implementation which stores all data >> offheap or some onheap and some offheap? >> 2. Or are we focused on creating a Data Store which is offheap and can >> be plugged in as data store of other cache implementation? In this >> case we are focussed on creating our own Offheap Map implementation. >> >> Just to have more clarity to focus on implementation. >> >> -- >> thanks >> ashish >> >> Blog: http://www.ashishpaliwal.com/blog >> My Photo Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/ashishpaliwal >> > -- thanks ashish Blog: http://www.ashishpaliwal.com/blog My Photo Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/ashishpaliwal
