RFR: 8207851 JEP Draft: Support ByteBuffer mapped over non-volatile memory

Andrew Dinn adinn at redhat.com
Fri Mar 1 11:05:56 UTC 2019

Hi Alan,

On 17/02/2019 17:37, Alan Bateman wrote:
> On 15/02/2019 17:13, Chris Hegarty wrote:
>> :
>> I see that there are changes to the Java SE Platform, namely to the
>> MapMode constructor and an overload of MappedByteBuffer::force. I see
>> these more as "enablers" in support of this feature ( rather than the
>> core of the feature itself ). They can happen as part of the same
>> changeset, or could possibly be pushed separately upfront.
> Yes, the 2-arg force method is useful on its own and could be done in
> advance (if Andrew wants). There are several detailed API issues with
> this method but we should be able to agree those quickly (Andrew - these
> are issues due to MBB being a ByteBuffer so we have to sort out - long
> from/to vs. int index/size, the upper bound check against the limit
> rather the capacity, and IAE vs. IIOBE - I'll put these in another
> mail). Making map mode extensible is also something that can be done in
> advance. The only piece that is would make it SE scope is the isSync
> (was isPersistent) method but I don't think it is strictly needed to be
> exposed initially.
Having dealt with the above issues (including removing the isSync
method) I have reclassified the scope of the JEP to JDK.

I would like now to submit this JEP and begin review of the
implementation patches. In particular, I'd like to proceed with the
preparatory patches to i) make map mode extensible and ii) overload
force. Is it ok to go ahead with this?


Andrew Dinn
Senior Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat UK Ltd
Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 03798903
Directors: Michael Cunningham, Michael ("Mike") O'Neill, Eric Shander

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list