Geoff Howard dijo: > Antonio Gallardo wrote: > >>Geoff Howard dijo: >> >> >>>Ok, I think this bears bringing this issue up in a new thread (so people >>>notice it). The point I take out of this is that JCS makes it explicit >>>that successful persistence is not currently guaranteed (at least in the >>>default better-performing configuration). For all we know, this may >>>have been the case with JISP too but just not explicit. I don't know if >>>people have used our Cache as a persistence layer for application data. >>>I would not have recommended it before, and definitely would not now if >>>we go to JCS. I'm comfortable with this. >>> >>> >> >>BTW, OJB can uses JCS too: >> >>http://db.apache.org/ojb/objectcache.html > > This is exactly the reason this point needs to be clear. Knowing that > persistence is not guaranteed in all circumstances, I would not want > anyone using our upcoming JCS Cache for persistence of critical > application data without being clearly aware of the risks in the case of > abnormal shutdown.
Hi Geoff: I think we can switch. As you stated before, we don't have even with jisp this "feature". I understand we can have concerns this weak. And I am +1 to solve this in the near future. I think it is a matter of time when JCS will implement this. I think a NOTE in the RELEASE NOTES will be enough to let know people about potetial issues. NOTE: In the OJB case the usage of JCS is just one of the cache approahing we can use. JCS is optional in OJB. I am +1 to move to JCS. :-D Best Regards, Antonio Gallardo.
