Geir Magnusson Jr. said:
On Thursday, October 23, 2003, at 05:09 PM, Daniel Rall wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: ...
You might have some legs to stand on for the second one, as that allows you to override the cache class, which I think is the general operation, but the third is clearly targeted for the default implementation.
Yes, the third does apply to the default implementation. Bounding of caches should is encouraged behavior. Having a cache which grows without bound is a memory leak waiting to happen, easy to trigger in environments with a high fixed or variable number of resources.
I can't see what anything but the first sentence is relevant.
i believe the point is that other implementations of ResourceCache are both able and encouraged to use that same property. they are not, however, required to make use of it. if the property name/key is changed to indicate that it is only to be used for the default implementation (as you suggest), then other ResourceCache implementations that wish to have a bound on the cache size will likely end up implementing their own property name/key. why not just leave the property as is and let any implementation make use of it that so chooses?
if i understand Dan correctly on this, then i agree with what he's saying.
Nathan, that was what I was trying to say. Thanks for clearing things up.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
