> I dont understand why in a read only cache ( what Christoph is trying to > achieve) you need a transaction aware distributed caching.
For a read-only cache, we can just use a JCS distributed cache. P.S. in my discussions of LockServers, I assumed that everyone would realise that the LockServer doesn't become a central point of failure. In case some people didn't realise; well, it doesn't. Failure of the LockServer would mean that servers were no longer able to access the cache. It would not stop them reading data directly from the database. The "lock" doesn't represent a lock upon a data item. It represents a lock upon the *cached* data item. No transaction may ever block another transaction inside the persistence layer. The database itself manages concurrency issues. ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by: OSDN - Tired of that same old cell phone? Get a new here for FREE! https://www.inphonic.com/r.asp?r=sourceforge1&refcode1=vs3390 _______________________________________________ hibernate-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hibernate-devel
