Agree as well.
Best Regards,
Ivan Rakov
On 22.06.2017 1:23, Valentin Kulichenko wrote:
I agree. Ivan, do you have objections?
-Val
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
<dsetrak...@apache.org <mailto:dsetrak...@apache.org>> 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 <ira...@gridgain.com
<mailto:ira...@gridgain.com>> 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
<dsetrak...@apache.org <mailto:dsetrak...@apache.org>
>> >
>> wrote:
>>
>> Doesn't look useful to me.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 1:03 AM, Valentin Kulichenko <
>>> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com
<mailto:valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>
