[RFC][Icedtea-Web]: Enforce cache size limit.

[Denis Lila]

> I think this should be in its own patch for refactoring, not related
> to handling cache size.

Hm, ok, sure.

I'm ok with the patch then (as long as keep.contains(rStr) in
the if statement is fixed as we discussed on irc).

Regards,
Denis.

----- Original Message -----
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Denis Lila" <dlila at redhat.com>
> > To: "Andrew Su" <asu at redhat.com>
> > Cc: "IcedTea" <distro-pkg-dev at openjdk.java.net>
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 11:28:18 AM
> > Subject: Re: [RFC][Icedtea-Web]: Enforce cache size limit.
> > Can you replace this:
> >
> > > - String rStr = value.substring(cacheDir.length());
> > > + String rStr = file.getPath().substring(cacheDir.length());
> > >                      rStr = cacheDir + rStr.substring(0,
> > >                      rStr.indexOf(File.separatorChar, 1));
> > > + long len = file.length();
> >
> > with
> >
> > String rStr = cacheDir + File.separatorChar +
> > CacheLRUWrapper.getIdForCacheFile(value);
> >
> > We already have the id extraction logic encapsulated in a function.
> > There's no need to re-implement it in here (but this require some
> > visibility changes. Maybe move getIdForCacheFile to CacheUtil?).
> 

> 
> >
> >
> > > + curSize += len;
> > >                          keep.add(value.substring(rStr.length()));
> > >                          keep.add(rStr); // We can just use the
> > >                          same
> > >                          map, since these two things are disjoint
> > >                          with each other.
> >
> > Can you please introduce a new Set<String>? I understand that
> > they're disjoint, but it's still clearer and closer to what we
> > want to have two sets: one for use in removeUntracked, and
> > one for use in cleanCache.
> > That way correctness would be obvious. This way the reader
> > has to think about tricky corner cases.
> 
> Same as above, should be done in another patch for refactoring.
> 
> --snip--
> 
> Cheers,
> Andrew