> Agree as well.
>
> Best Regards,
> Ivan Rakov
>
> On 22.06.2017 1:23, Valentin Kulichenko wrote:
>
> I agree. Ivan, do you have objections?
>
> -Val
>
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> Ivan,
>>
>> The semantic now is very confusing, because localEvict does not evict to
>> off-heap, it just removes it from on-heap. The off-heap cache always has
>> the entry anyway.
>>
>> My vote would be to remove this method as I don't see anyone every needing
>> it. Perhaps a more useful method would be to flush the whole on-heap cache
>> altogether.
>>
>> D.
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Ivan Rakov <
[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> > Semantics in 2.0: if onheap cache enabled, method evicts entry from it.
>> If
>> > onheap cache is disabled (default case), implementation is no-op.
>> > Probably we should keep the method and add some note in javadoc.
>> >
>> > Best Regards,
>> > Ivan Rakov
>> >
>> > On 19.06.2017 17:01, Igor Sapego wrote:
>> >
>> >> What if user enables on-heap cache?
>> >>
>> >> Best Regards,
>> >> Igor
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 3:34 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
>>
[hidden email]
>> >> >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Doesn't look useful to me.
>> >>>
>> >>> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 1:03 AM, Valentin Kulichenko <
>> >>>
[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Folks,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Does the subj make sense in 2.0? Before this method could be used to
>> >>>>
>> >>> evict
>> >>>
>> >>>> from on-heap memory to off-heap or swap. What are the semantics now?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> -Val
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >
>>
>
>
>
Locked
