On Jan 26, 1:36 am, Jean-Charles Redoutey <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 02:49, Dustin <[email protected]> wrote:
> > That is, it feels like it could lead to a lot of confusion when the
> > time ends up overlapping due to values newer than the flush timeline
> > being built upon items that are older than the flush timeline.
> > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
>
> I am not sure to get your point here. Each item in the cache has only one
> clearly defined creation timestamp: the time when it was last
> added/set/replaced. Ok, this can be more an "update" timestamp from client
> perspective, but this timestamp is clearly defined as the time when the key
> and this associated data was put in cache. So whatever the history of the
> key (if any) we only deal with the last update time, so no overlapping
> issues, or did I miss something?
By overlapping, I meant building things from cache based on other
things found from cache. Where today's flush destroys everything, the
negative flush would destroy *some* of everything.
It seems like a cache generation might be more easily understood.
I'm still having trouble weighing the value of a negative time flush
against the potential confusion it may cause.
