Uh? You have to mark in-memory objects as unused to get rid of them?
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 9:40 PM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> On Monday 19 May 2008 15:24, Matthew Toseland wrote:
>> On Monday 19 May 2008 14:47, Matthew Toseland wrote:
>> > On Monday 19 May 2008 11:34, Matthew Toseland wrote:
everything.
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080520/241cc2fa/attachment.pgp>
t must not refer to any persistent objects).
Actually, Perst is significantly higher level than db4o in one important
respect: it has garbage collection. In db4o you have to explicitly delete
everything.
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080520/580965ee/attachment.pgp>
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 2:49 AM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> On Friday 16 May 2008 16:15, j16sdiz at freenetproject.org wrote:
>> Author: j16sdiz
>> Date: 2008-05-16 15:15:24 + (Fri, 16 May 2008)
>> New Revision: 19954
>>
>> Modified:
>>
part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080520/dbdb4f93/attachment.pgp>
high latency Freenet may not be feasible because of swapping...
>
> Cheers,
> Michael
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080520/c8b25445/attachment.pgp>
ion/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080520/560b17b4/attachment.pgp>
Matthew Toseland wrote:
> Hmmm, I thought you were arguing that the latency would be unacceptable for a
> message board system?
I was arguing that you couldn't mix ten-second latency with ten-day
latency in the same system. Usenet messages used to take several days to
reach the furthest
tps://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080520/c6c9ce1b/attachment.pgp>
to use it.
Which of the hooks shall I set up ? :)
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080520/8ffbe7e9/attachment.pgp>
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 11:19 AM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> On Sunday 02 March 2008 16:35, Ian Clarke wrote:
>> What do people think of this website as a possible way to improve how
>> we provide user support?:
>>
>> http://getsatisfaction.com/
>>
>> It looks friendly, and pretty powerful.
>
>
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 8:42 AM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> Another worry with db4o: a lot of configuration needs to be done on the Db4o
> object, before creating the ObjectContainer. Once we have "untrusted
> plugins", we will need to provide an indirection layer for plugins to call
> the config
y, my new code is not yet a plugin. I try to have it working
standalone too. But thanks for your offer.
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 252 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080520/2381ae45/attachment.pgp>
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 2:49 AM, Matthew Toseland
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 16 May 2008 16:15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: j16sdiz
Date: 2008-05-16 15:15:24 + (Fri, 16 May 2008)
New Revision: 19954
Modified:
trunk/freenet/src/freenet/store/BerkeleyDBFreenetStore.java
* Ian Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-05-17 10:35:59]:
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 6:29 AM, Matthew Toseland
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As nextgens is worried about anonymous contributions, I thought he might
want
to review this before I apply it.
You know, I wish you guys would at least try
On Monday 19 May 2008 18:02, Julien Cornuwel wrote:
Matthew Toseland a écrit :
Thoughts? IMHO backups are an important feature, and they'd probably have
to
be hot backups for our usage... but then, not corrupting on running out of
disk space is important too!
I just rewrote the WoT
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 8:42 AM, Matthew Toseland
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another worry with db4o: a lot of configuration needs to be done on the Db4o
object, before creating the ObjectContainer. Once we have untrusted
plugins, we will need to provide an indirection layer for plugins to call
Matthew Toseland wrote:
Hmmm, I thought you were arguing that the latency would be unacceptable for a
message board system?
I was arguing that you couldn't mix ten-second latency with ten-day
latency in the same system. Usenet messages used to take several days to
reach the furthest corners
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 11:19 AM, Matthew Toseland
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 02 March 2008 16:35, Ian Clarke wrote:
What do people think of this website as a possible way to improve how
we provide user support?:
http://getsatisfaction.com/
It looks friendly, and pretty powerful.
On Tuesday 20 May 2008 15:23, Michael Rogers wrote:
Matthew Toseland wrote:
Hmmm, I thought you were arguing that the latency would be unacceptable
for a
message board system?
I was arguing that you couldn't mix ten-second latency with ten-day
latency in the same system. Usenet
On Tuesday 20 May 2008 15:21, Ian Clarke wrote:
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 8:42 AM, Matthew Toseland
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another worry with db4o: a lot of configuration needs to be done on the
Db4o
object, before creating the ObjectContainer. Once we have untrusted
plugins, we will need
On Tuesday 20 May 2008 15:29, Ian Clarke wrote:
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 11:19 AM, Matthew Toseland
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 02 March 2008 16:35, Ian Clarke wrote:
What do people think of this website as a possible way to improve how
we provide user support?:
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 10:42 PM, Matthew Toseland
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 20 May 2008 15:21, Ian Clarke wrote:
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 8:42 AM, Matthew Toseland
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another worry with db4o: a lot of configuration needs to be done on the
Db4o
object, before
On Monday 19 May 2008 15:24, Matthew Toseland wrote:
On Monday 19 May 2008 14:47, Matthew Toseland wrote:
On Monday 19 May 2008 11:34, Matthew Toseland wrote:
On Sunday 18 May 2008 19:44, Ian Clarke wrote:
Looking at the manual, it looks like Perst operates at a lower level
than
Uh? You have to mark in-memory objects as unused to get rid of them?
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 9:40 PM, Matthew Toseland
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 19 May 2008 15:24, Matthew Toseland wrote:
On Monday 19 May 2008 14:47, Matthew Toseland wrote:
On Monday 19 May 2008 11:34, Matthew
On Tuesday 20 May 2008 20:46, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Uh? You have to mark in-memory objects as unused to get rid of them?
No, on-disk ones. Because db4o is query-oriented, it doesn't know what objects
you want and what you don't.
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 9:40 PM, Matthew Toseland
[EMAIL
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 3:09 PM, Matthew Toseland
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 20 May 2008 20:46, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Uh? You have to mark in-memory objects as unused to get rid of them?
No, on-disk ones. Because db4o is query-oriented, it doesn't know what objects
you want and
On Tuesday 20 May 2008 21:19, Ian Clarke wrote:
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 3:09 PM, Matthew Toseland
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 20 May 2008 20:46, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Uh? You have to mark in-memory objects as unused to get rid of them?
No, on-disk ones. Because db4o is
* Matthew Toseland [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-05-17 21:58:02]:
GCC 4.3 shipped in March, including the new ECJ frontend. It has full support
for all the new 1.5 language features. IMHO this means that there is no
longer any reason to stick to java 1.4.
Comments?
Last time I was the one who
29 matches
Mail list logo
