usually a cache is supposed to keep object with an eviction policy.
in that case I suppose the policy is : keep no objects.
otherwise I would not call that a cache but a map or registry.
Stefan Guggisberg wrote:
On 7/14/05, Julien Viet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If you disable the cache then you reload everything all the time and
should achieve the desired effect, but performances will suffer a lot.
By the way I disabled the cache in jackrabbit (I simple modified the
code to have the SharedItemCache have the put() do a noop).
Some tests were not passing with that change. I think it is not normal
to have the tests failing when the cache is disabled (even if it
is uses a hack to make it not effective)
what would you expect if you'd mess around at the very core of a
repository/rdbms?
Marcel Reutegger wrote:
Julien Viet wrote:
because jackrabbit uses an internal cache that you cannot disable.
and even if you would be able to disable the cache, one instance had
to tell the other one that something has changed on disc. otherwise
you would have to scan the filesystem all the time for possible changes.
clustering is not that easy ;)
regards
marcel
--
Julien Viet
JBoss Portal Lead Developer
--
Julien Viet
JBoss Portal Lead Developer
