At first glance, I'd agree with Pedro.On 2 Nov 2017, at 16:07, Pedro Ruivo wrote:Hi,IMO, I would separate the concept of counter and configuration.Even if an user doesn't create many counters, I think most of them will share the same configuration. As a bad example, if you
Hi Galder,
JDK 10 Early Access build 29 is available at : - jdk.java.net/10/
JDK 10 Early Access Release Notes are available [1]
JDK 10 Schedule, Status & Features are available [2]
Notes
* OpenJDK EA binaries will be available at a later date.
* Oracle has proposed: Newer
Thanks Galder and Pedro. I'll implement them as you suggested!
Cheers
On 2017-11-03 6:02 AM, Galder Zamarreño wrote:
At first glance, I'd agree with Pedro.
On 2 Nov 2017, at 16:07, Pedro Ruivo wrote:
Hi,
IMO, I would separate the concept of counter and configuration.
Because you would have to duplicate entire Map on each update, unless
you used not-100%-so-far functional commands. We've used the ScopedKey
that would make this Cache, Object>. This
approach was abandoned with ISPN-5932 [1], Adrian and Tristan can
elaborate why.
From systematic POV, +1. For marshalling it would bring another 11
bytes, which is not ideal, so we might consider encoding that
differently. Not sure how error-prone would some naming that has
non-trivial transformation be.
R.
On 11/03/2017 12:42 AM, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
> On 2 November
I'm pretty sure it's a silly question, but I need to ask it :)
Why can't we store all our internal information in a single, replicated
cache (of a type ). PURPOSE could be an enum
or a string identifying whether it's scripting cache, transaction cache or
anything