[jboss-dev-forums] [Design of JBossCache] - Re: JBCACHE-1153 - structural nodes

[mircea.markus]

anonymous wrote : I think this can become a problem since even a node with no data still has an overhead and an impact on memory. I think they should still be considered for eviction.at the time the
If we consider for eviction such a node, and it gets to be evicted, nothing really happens at that point, unless it is a leaf node. For all non-leafs nodes, the eviction would only empty the attribute map, which in our case is already empty (effect of eviction would be void). I also agree that those nodes are not empty and somehow makes sense counting them as nodes to be evicted, but on the other hand they reduce the benefits of it which is cleaning up memory and allow for other data to be kept there...
anonymous wrote : Can't we just use the resident flag for this purpose instead? 
  |  we can go on and implement based on this approach. The implementation is a bit trickier due to transactions:

  | cache.put("/a/b/c","k","v");
  | //at this point "/a" and "/a/b" are structural + resident
  | tx.start()
  | cache.put("/a/b","k2","v2"); //at this point "/a/b" becomes not-structural
  | tx.rollback();
  | //"/a/b" should not be structural + resident as transaction failed
  | 

anonymous wrote : See my comment on http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4097183#4097183 about tombstones and invalid nodes. It shows how you could have empty nodes with no data, that *should* be considered for eviction.
I haven't totally get it (Mon morning :) ), let's have a chat 

View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4097378#4097378

Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4097378