> On 2 Mar 2020, at 22:34, Claude Warren wrote:
>
> So what we have then is:
>
> *public* *interface* BloomFilter {
>
> *int* andCardinality(BloomFilter other);
>
> *int* cardinality();
>
> *boolean* contains(BloomFilter other);
>
> *boolean* contains(Hasher hasher);
>
>
So what we have then is:
*public* *interface* BloomFilter {
*int* andCardinality(BloomFilter other);
*int* cardinality();
*boolean* contains(BloomFilter other);
*boolean* contains(Hasher hasher);
*long*[] getBits();
// Change
PrimitiveIterator.OfInt iterator();
On 02/03/2020 16:12, Claude Warren wrote:
Does getCounts() return a snapshot of the values when the call was made or
does it return values that may be updated during the retrieval. If there
are 2 threads (one reading counts and one doing a merge) it seems to me
that the "iterate over the data
Does getCounts() return a snapshot of the values when the call was made or
does it return values that may be updated during the retrieval. If there
are 2 threads (one reading counts and one doing a merge) it seems to me
that the "iterate over the data without constructing objects" approach
means t
Hello.
Le lun. 2 mars 2020 à 14:19, Manas Kalangan a écrit :
>
> hey guys , i am manas , 2nd year computer engineering student, this is my
> first time in GSoC, could someone help me with project idea?
Welcome at the Commons project's discussion forum, but please
do not hijack threads.[1]
Best
hey guys , i am manas , 2nd year computer engineering student, this is my
first time in GSoC, could someone help me with project idea?
On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 6:42 PM Alex Herbert
wrote:
>
> On 02/03/2020 11:32, Claude Warren wrote:
> > my thought on changing the BloomFilter.merge() to return a b
On 02/03/2020 11:32, Claude Warren wrote:
my thought on changing the BloomFilter.merge() to return a boolean is along
the lines you had: return true on successful merge (even if there are no
changes in the enabled bits). And yes, for most cases the standard bloom
filter will return true, but th
my thought on changing the BloomFilter.merge() to return a boolean is along
the lines you had: return true on successful merge (even if there are no
changes in the enabled bits). And yes, for most cases the standard bloom
filter will return true, but the change is really to support extensions to
Bl
On 02/03/2020 09:38, Claude Warren wrote:
It is not too late to update the BloomFIlter interface to have the merge
return a boolean. The incorrect Shape would still throw an exception, so
the return value would only come into play if the bits could not be set.
thoughts?
I don't see the harm i
Le 04/01/2020 à 12:19, Stefan Bodewig a écrit :
>> FYI I plan to fork the JDK pack200 implementation into a standalone
>> project. I've reserved the 'pack200' group on GitHub for this. The code
>> isn't published yet
>
> https://github.com/pack200/pack200 looks pretty public to me :-)
I've publi
It is not too late to update the BloomFIlter interface to have the merge
return a boolean. The incorrect Shape would still throw an exception, so
the return value would only come into play if the bits could not be set.
thoughts?
On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 7:56 AM Claude Warren wrote:
> for the rem
11 matches
Mail list logo
