We have a bug where you disable the table and it doesn't show as disabled - I suspect the other way is problematic too but don't know for sure. Looking into this brings up a few questions:
1) Based on the usage, I'm not so sure the tableDescriptor even needs to be cached, so instead of fixing, perhaps the easy route of just don't cache it should be taken? 2) If we do keep the cache, I think we should move to a proper cache (e.g. Guava LoadingCache or somesuch) that has proper evictions/invalidation. Anyone have strong feelings on that? 3) It feels weird/wrong to have useCache in the calling method - it seems like that should be an internal decision not one of the caller. Thoughts on this? Thanks, --tim
