Hmm..looked at gearman and beanstalkd. I'm not sure I actually have a
queuing problem. Service A wants to use Service B as a "database" but
doesn't want to go over the wire with an RPC call every time it
accesses Data Unit X (which only changes rarely). Yes, Service B will
know when Data Unit X changes, and yes I can do it the other way
around and have Service B generate an update message when it changes
Data Unit X, but it still seems like a queue or a message bus is
overkill.

On Oct 29, 2:37 pm, "Josef Finsel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The short answer is no.
> Memcached is a cache.
>
> What you want is a queue, and if you do a quick scan of the list archives,
> you'll find there was a good discussion of this topic 
> (http://groups.google.com/group/memcached/browse_thread/thread/6e1c7f1...)<http://groups.google.com/group/memcached/browse_thread/thread/6e1c7f1...>
>
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 3:31 PM, outinsun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I am building an application using SOA. I have one service that needs
> > to embed infrequently updated information that is managed by another
> > service. I want to avoid having to make RPC calls every time I access
> > the data in question, but also want to make sure updates to that data
> > are reflected at the other end. I can't figure out whether memcached
> > is a logical basis for this kind of application, or is completely
> > irrelevant. Any thoughts? If irrelevant, any pointers to something
> > more appropriate?
>
> --
> "If you see a whole thing - it seems that it's always beautiful. Planets,
> lives... But up close a world's all dirt and rocks. And day to day, life's a
> hard job, you get tired, you lose the pattern."
> Ursula K. Le Guin
>
> http://www.finsel.com/words,-words,-words.aspx(My blog) 
> -http://www.finsel.com/photo-gallery.aspx(My Photogallery)  
> -http://www.reluctantdba.com/dbas-and-programmers/blog.aspx(My Professional
> Blog)

Reply via email to