Too bad y'all did not isolate the API then :( It may be confusing to users, but I think we need to stay with hibernate-jbosscache2. Worst case we can push that this is our "second attempt" at integration as the reason for the '2'.
- Steve Ebersole Project Lead http://hibernate.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] Principal Software Engineer JBoss, a division of Red Hat http://jboss.com http://redhat.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Mon, 2008-10-13 at 09:57 +0100, Manik Surtani wrote: > Guys, > > The API of JBC 3.0 is compatible with 2.x so the actual provider code > should not change, but we probably want to test MVCC as a locking > scheme as well. > > So, we either > > 1) need a cache-jbosscache3 module (yuk!), copy the providers and > existing tests from cache-jbosscache2 and add a few extra tests. > > or, > > 2) assume that cache-jbosscache2 refers to an API and not a version > of the cache. So update the cache used in cache-jbosscache2 to 3.0.0, > and add the extra MVCC tests as well. > > My pref would be for 2, what do you guys think? > > Cheers > -- > Manik Surtani > Lead, JBoss Cache > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > _______________________________________________ > hibernate-dev mailing list > hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev _______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
