Hi! > We are working on creating a "storage interface" to memcached, so that you > can create you own back-end. This sounds like a pretty easy task to > implement in the prototype we have....
Indeed, with the pluggable storage engine that is going on, whats been debated in this thread would be trivial to achieve. I'm sure heaps of people would like this asap but at the moment, bug fixes and the binary protocol takes priority so it would be awesome if people could resist from taking action, such as forking. One problem with memcached forks is that some forks have really nice features but most (if not all) forks are unlikely to be noticed/exposed/trusted/used by a lot of web developers/shops. This is sad since this means that so much effort and knowledge is going to waste. We should hopefully be able to eliminate that waste and the likelihood of people forking memcached with the pluggable storage engine architecture :) Cheers, Toru On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Trond Norbye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sep 11, 2008, at 5:10 AM, PlumbersStock.com wrote: > >> >> In that case.. Would anyone be interested in collecting a bounty on >> getting a save/restore feature created that would be accepted into the >> main branch? What would be a fair bounty for something like this? >> >> Option to save all items in memory to hdd on shutdown of memcached. >> Option to load saved items from hdd to memory on start of memcached. >> Option to load, in addition to memory dump, a changes list from a text >> file (some simple to produce format - up to you) on start of >> memcached. Changes would include anything memcached can be asked to >> do. > > We are working on creating a "storage interface" to memcached, so that you > can create you own back-end. This sounds like a pretty easy task to > implement in the prototype we have.... > > Cheers, > > Trond > >
