<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Pedro Ruivo <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pedro@infinispan.org" target="_blank">pedro@infinispan.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im"><br>
<br>
On 11/22/2013 11:40 AM, Sanne Grinovero wrote:<br>
<br>
><br>
> Do we still need to support the non-V8 implementations?<br>
> Clearly there are cases in which we need it to be available:<br>
> org.infinispan.util.concurrent.locks.containers.AbstractPerEntryLockContainer<L><br>
> refers explicitly to EquivalentConcurrentHashMapV8<br>
<br>
</div>I don't think we need to support the non-v8 implementation but I'm not<br>
aware of any BoundedConcurrentHashMapV8. So, if I have to choose, for me<br>
it is simpler to change the current BounderConcurrentHashMap than<br>
implement all the eviction policies on top of ECHM-V8.<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">To put it another way, we do need to support the non-v8 implementation because that's the only implementation of size-based eviction we've got :)</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">AFAIK there are some lock-free implementations out there for LRU, and there may be some for LIRS as well. But our current implementations require a lock on the entire segment, so there is no simple way to make them work with CHMV8.</div>
</div>