(2010/01/07 23:36), Guille -bisho- wrote: >> Like I said, I understand your argument. The question is what >> proportion of the users would benefit from this? To be honest I don't >> have the answer for this. However, taking into account that memcached >> has been used worldwide >> without serious complaints by players of all sizes in it's history, I >> don't think it's necessary. Damn, I was even skeptical of the SASL >> support at the beginning (I agree with this now though). I just don't >> want to see memcached get bloated by adding database-like >> functionalities. > > Agree! > > Memcache is meant to be a fast cache. If you need to deploy a shared > memcache used by several users, you could add a proxy that prefixes > all mc keys by the user id, so there are no conflicts, and you have > the advantage of all the memory being shared in a pool instead of > having different instances infrautilized.
This idea does not allow to share an item from several users or groups. As I mentioned before, it might be a solution, if we would always enforce strict-separation rules. But this assumption is different from what we are talking about. Thanks, -- OSS Platform Development Division, NEC KaiGai Kohei <[email protected]>
