Hey Marc,
> I guess I don't see why a reinserted bean needs to behave any
> differently
> than "normal" beans. I did code an "update usage" just like
> when a bean is
> called so that it goes back as a "currently in use" bean and
> goes out of the
> "LRU" scope
Yes, this is what happens. Sorry if I explained it ambiguously.
> ... is your implementation LRU?
Yes (if not is a bug).
> |If the TX times out, I expect that its TX is nullified (am I
> right on this
> |in every case - BMT and CMT ?) and when a) or b) eventually
> happens it is
> |finally passivated.
>
> Make sure tha the passivation does behave properly, we seem
> to have problems
> with the timeout in the container right now...
In my tests it seems to behave correctly, for
a) commit option C
b) cache full
c) bean overage
Waiting for your results.
> |Nevertheless, this introduce a new problem: the cache can
> pass its maximum
> |capacity.
> |Say I have cache max capacity 5; I create 5 beans and I
> leave all their
> |transactions active (so I cannot passivate them). Now I create a
> |6th bean...
> |cannot insert in cache, cannot free space in the cache... what now ?
> |I can set the max capacity to be virtually infinite (ie no
> max capacity),
> |and since the cache have a resizer that resizes its capacity
> we would have
> |no problem in *normal* use. Should I do this change in your opinion ?
>
> good point, I guess the "max size" algorythms have this
> problem... (Random
> passivation right?). Again the LRU passivation works fine
> with this (as I
> update the usage if there is a transaction). One thing I
> would do it work
> from the current size of the cache and only 'sweep' once in
> this fashion you
> won't loop but the map will grow accordingly. At every
> iteration you will
> try to passivate but you will reach the end.
Didn't follow you.
The max size problem is there independently of the cache algorithm, isn't it
?
The resizer and the overager work in a thread that isn't the passivator one.
The LRU cache size is a parameter we want to tune, of course. When something
goes out of the cache it is passivated, but what happens if I cannot
passivate it ? In the actual implementation an exception is thrown because
the cache cannot exceed what we wanted to be its max capacity. Do you think
that I should give the caches no max capacity limit ?
Regards,
Simon
