On 5/30/05, Barry Beattie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > so what you're saying is that holding or caching of data across the cluster > should be avoided because the mechanics of refreshing each instance is the > tricky bit.
No, if all you're doing is caching then each server instance should manage its own cache anyway and you wouldn't need to propagate data across the cluster. > if an instance gets an update, it knows where the other instances' > webservices are and "pushes" the new data to them. since each instance know > where it's "mates" are any one of them can update the whole lot, yes? Yes, each instance would have a list of other instances and when an instance gets an update that needs to be propagated, it would invoke the web service on each of its "mates". > That seems to be a bit of work to set up. I take it you'd only do this > sparingly then...? Yes, I'd say that in reality this is a rare case. You do not need to propagate cached data across a cluster - although you may need to propagate a cache invalidation across a cluster. In general, if you have data that needs to be managed across a cluster, a database is usually a more effective way to do it that to try to handle it via inter-instance communication. -- Sean A Corfield -- http://corfield.org/ Team Fusebox -- http://fusebox.org/ Got Gmail? -- I have 50, yes 50, invites to give away! "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." -- Margaret Atwood --- You are currently subscribed to cfaussie as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aussie Macromedia Developers: http://lists.daemon.com.au/
