On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 12:05:31 GMT, Alan Bateman <al...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> The reason for the comment is to make it clear why `DirectBuffer::address` >> can be used directly without guarding. This will also reduce the probability >> of unnecessary guarding being added in the future. However, if the consensus >> is that these comments just adds confusion, I am happy to remove them. > > I'd prefer to see this comment removed from all places that are obviously > interacting with the direct buffer cache. These usages are try-finally to > acquire and return the temporary direct buffer cache back to the cache. > Talking about closable sessions here is definitely confusing. > Thanks for persisting with it, latest version looks okay to me and the naming > issue can be sorted out after the JEP is integrated. IMHO the renaming is not super important - the underlying abstraction managing the segment lifetime is still called MemorySession, even after https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/10872. And, acquire/release are methods on MemorySession - so I think the current name might be more precise even after we integrate the latest API changes. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/11260
