On 23.02.2004 16:47, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
We were using Jisp and Scott's decision makes it clear that we either:

- have to maintain Jisp 2.x ourselves

or

- use something else

Here I would like to ask you a much easier question: do we really need it? can't we just our storage into a bunch directories and use that as a file system? that works very well for file-intensive setups like mail client/servers and browser caches, why shouldn't it work for us?

And why shall we invent the wheel again? If every Apache project using Jisp until now starts with its own simple cache implementation ... Why not just using Turbine JCS? Had anybody a closer look in the meantime? Is it also oversized?


Joerg

Reply via email to