From: Intransition <transfire@...>
Date: 2010-04-15T20:43:35+09:00
Subject: Re: Memoize and GC



On Apr 15, 3:16 am, Robert Klemme <shortcut...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> 2010/4/14 Intransition <transf...@gmail.com>:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 14, 7:02 am, Robert Klemme <shortcut...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> >> What else do you want to handle?  My implementation [1] does also only
> >> consider size but I have also seen implementations that consider
> >> insertion or access time.  Personally I dislike those solutions
> >> because they might throw away stuff too early and make the
> >> implementation more complex.  The main point (resource control) is
> >> already achieved by limiting the size of a LRU map.
>
> > Fair enough, I just thought it would be nice to have the *option* of a
> > time-based cache.
>
> Definitively!  But this would be a different beast for me.  One might
> be able to implement this by using a LRUHash or by inheriting from it.
>  But I would not combine that in a single class.  Another option could
> be to have a modular approach where the container gets a
> DeletionPolicy that is responsible for deciding when or what to
> delete.  The interface could look like
>
> interface DeletionPolicy
>   def insert(key,val)
>   def remove(key, val)
>   def access(key, val)
>   def next_delete # yields key
> end
>
> Just a quick hack though withou

I kind of like that idea.