Dormando, Delete isn't anything I use in production but it can be very handy to remove keys from the server so I can see how software will react in trying to reload the memcached server. There are other ways I could probably achieve it but this is the most effective for testing.
Josef "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 On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 2:00 AM, dormando <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm actually a bit curious on this myself, and believe some of the > development work going on has removed this feature, since it is pretty > awkward. > > We were discussing it in irc and couldn't find a usage pattern that > isn't better off using 'add' with a low timeout. The way it's > implemented is a dynamic array loop thing, which isn't exactly ideal > anymore. > > So, anyone using it? I hope you're listening and speak up soon :) We'll > make a lot more noise as this feature is .. presently slated for removal > I guess. > > -Dormando > > Wayne Hineman wrote: > > Hi, > > As a newbie to memcached, I've been reading carefully the protocol > > document and have a question about the optional time value on the > > 'delete' command. The document describes very well how it works; > > my question is what is the use case for this function? Is it used > > widely? I can kind of understand a desire to prevent certain keys > > from being stored, but the 'set' command overrides this behavior. > > Is it expected that new keys are always 'add'ed and existing keys > > always 'replace'd? I might expect that the opposite is true: that > > 'set' is used more frequently than add/replace, thus making the > > optional time on 'delete' moot. So what's the thought behind this > > feature? > > > > Thanks! > > > > Wayne > > > > > > > > > >
