>> I could help with option 1 if we decide to go that route Thanks, Tanvir, I would also add this is the route I prefer. Other opinions?
Ciao, R On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 10:17 PM, Mir Tanvir Hossain < [email protected]> wrote: > I could help with option 1 if we decide to go that route. > > -Mir > > On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Raffaele P. Guidi < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > FYI > > > > Now, we should decide how to proceed. Think the choices are; > > > > 1) we take his advice and write the plugin, > > 2) we give him advice and he writes the plugin > > > > Option 1 requires more effort on our side it and I, at the moment, can't > > afford it - so, it would need a volounteer. We probably could pospone > every > > further strategical choice (about merging efforts) after this first > > integration step. > > > > Opinions? > > > > Ciao, > > R > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > From: Thomas Vandahl <[email protected]> > > Date: Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 7:03 PM > > Subject: Re: [JCS] - proposal on a off-heap plugin for JCS based on > > DirectMemory > > To: Commons Developers List <[email protected]> > > > > > > On 09.11.11 00:10, Raffaele P. Guidi wrote: > > > This is not so different from an indexed file, just it is in memory - > > maybe > > > you could take a look at the code (which is fairly simple) and get back > > to > > > us with some more targeted questions. > > > > I understand that the plugin is supposed to be added as an auxiliary > > cache module, right? If so, the IndexedDiskCache could be used as a > > template. How do you suggest we proceed? > > > > Bye, Thomas. > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > >
