On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Stefan Guggisberg <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Bart van der Schans > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Jukka Zitting <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Alexander Klimetschek <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> I would also first find the right persistence architecture and care >>>> about what caches we need later (and avoid them as much as possible). >>> >>> Agreed. Ideally (not sure if that's feasible) we'd push all caching >>> down below the unified persistence layer. >> >> If the persistence architecture will be plugable like now you'll never >> have any garantees that the persistence layer will cache anything and >> even read operations can become quite expensive or slow. In that case, >> caching just "above" the persistence layer like we do now with the >> BundleCache would make a lot of sense. > > BundleCache is not above, it's part of the persistence layer. Ah yes of course ;-)
> btw, the persistence architecture should IMO not be plugable in the > common sense, i.e. an operator shouldn't be able to switch them. > > the persistence managers in the current architecture aren't plugable > either, for a good reason. I agree. We should probably postpone the "caching discussions" until the dust has settled over the unified persistence thread. Regards, Bart > > cheers > stefan > >> >> For such a cache I do see benefits of using existing cache solutions >> that provide monitoring, management and clustering. >> >> Regards, >> Bart >> > -- Hippo B.V. - Amsterdam Oosteinde 11, 1017 WT, Amsterdam, +31(0)20-5224466 Hippo USA Inc. - San Francisco 101 H Street, Suite Q, Petaluma CA, 94952-3329, +1 (707) 773-4646 ----------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.onehippo.com - [email protected] -----------------------------------------------------------------
