> On Feb 23, 2016, at 12:36 PM, Jan Sindberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > It turns out that we are using AWS Instance type: t2.micro which provides a > baseline capability performance equivalent to 20% of a CPU core. > We have added a cache with timeout for session-permissions. With this in mind > and our earlier talk (in another thread) about network latency, I suggest > that we consider adding such caching to Fortress core. > 1) Caching of permissions > - pr user? > 2) Add config option for the cache manager (as done for other managers) > 3) Consider making it easy to add event integration between Fortress > Commander and any application using Fortress Core, such that changes made via > Commander will notify the cache and invalidate as appropriate. > - Are there any smart ways to get such events directly from OpenLDAP or > ApacheDS such that we can make it complete and totally easy to use ?
Jan, as a general rule I am not opposed to caching. But, as you point out here, there are complications that arise with its use. Yes, there are caches in fortress for other entities, but the number of entries to manage will increase by orders of magnitude once we add the user entity cache. The clients may implement this if they so choose so what advantage is there for us to implement? wrt directory event listening, yes there are ways to do, i.e. subscribe to the synch replication log feed. Shawn
