JDK 9 proposal: allocating ByteBuffers on heterogeneous memory

Ulf Zibis Ulf.Zibis at CoSoCo.de
Fri Apr 1 11:15:07 UTC 2016


good point!
As a convenience we could have something like:
ByteBuffer#allocateDirect(Path path)
ByteBuffer#allocateDirect(int size, Path path, Option options)

What is the logical difference between a memory and a byte buffer, as both provide the facility to 
save bytes?
Couldn't Intel just provide a com.intel.memory.XPoint3DByteBuffer extends Bytebuffer class with 
usual constructors?
I do not see the point, why introducing a new named interface for a just existing solution.

As a convenience we could have:
ByteBuffer#allocateDirect(int size, Class<ByteBuffer> bufferType)
If one wants to hide the class itself as similar with HeapByteBuffer:
ByteBuffer#allocateDirect(int size, BufferProvider provider)


Am 01.04.2016 um 09:49 schrieb Andrew Haley:
> I must be missing something. How is this different from exposing special memory via the filesystem 
> and mapping a file? Andrew. 

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list