On 04/22/2008 03:45 PM Derick Rethans wrote: > On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, Tobias Schlitt wrote: >> On 04/16/2008 08:53 PM Derick Rethans wrote: >>> On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, Tobias Schlitt wrote: >>>> On 04/16/2008 08:05 PM Derick Rethans wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008, Tobias Schlitt wrote: >>>>>> On 04/07/2008 09:25 PM Tobias Schlitt wrote:
>>> I didn't see any functions for reordering them, so how is this a >>> problem? >> $storageA = $stack->popStorage(); >> $storageB = $stack->popStorage(); >> $stack->pushStorage( $storageA ); >> $stack->pushStorage( $storageB ); > K, didn't see those. Instead of a number, could we use a string perhaps? Yes, I already changed this. If used properly, the $location parameter can also deal as this. However, there are some storages that do not force proper use of the $location parameter. I documented this. >>>>>> It needs to be clearified, if restored items should be bubbled up >>>>>> to higher storages. >>>>> Why wouldn't we want that? >>>> Because it costs time again. Imagine a 4 level stack, where file system >>>> is the lowest and largest one. Each time an item would be restored from >>>> the there, it would be placed in 3 higher storages again. Not sure if we >>>> want this, since it slows down the read process. >>> I think this is one of the major things why you'd want a stacked >>> cache... so yes, I definitely think it should be stored in higher >>> storages. Perhaps we can add an option to restore() to *not* do that, >>> but I do want the general case to store it in the higher caches. >> I think the parameter for restore() idea is not good. Let's better add >> an option to the stack to determine this. I'll add this to the design >> and will think about it some more, if it could not make any problems. > No, it can't be done on the stack - it should be done on each engine > *in* the stack. However, the default should be to bubble it up. I'm sorry, but I do not see how this is related to the storages themselves. The bubble-up to a higher level storage must be realized by the stack, not the contained storages. Those only deliver the cached data, the handling happens inside the stack. Do I get something wrong? Maybe you can elaborate some more, please? Regards, Toby -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Med vennlig hilsen / With kind regards Tobias Schlitt (GPG: 0xC462BC14) eZ Components Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] | eZ Systems AS | ez.no -- Components mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ez.no/mailman/listinfo/components
