On 09/28/2018 02:04 PM, Robert Engels wrote:
> This is in no way similar to weak references in Java. Weak references
> are safe and appropriate for many caching data structures. The code idea
> presented here is not related.
Correct.
I've used weak references in other languages (not Java) to, say, prevent
leaks due to reference cycles.
This is not that.
My idea could maybe be restated simpler as having a huge double-linked
list of sync.Pool objects and using wanting to supplement it by a map
index, but avoiding storing pointers in the map.
I don't think I've seen any argument that it's technically impossible by
now, but maybe there's better ways to do it ... maybe even write the
index manually instead of using the build in map.
I think the warning about this being "catastrophically unsafe" forgets
that these objects will be kept with proper pointers in a separate data
structure and the map was only intended as an index.
It was never the intention to let an uintptr be the only remaining
reference to the objects. There will of course, always be a need for
keeping proper pointers in a datastructure (like a list) to be able to
do proper Put() on the objects before the map reference is lost.
Anyway... I think I've found a more efficient way using integer slice
indexes instead of uintptr.
Thanks for input
/Peter
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
