The tutorial that mentions OS Cache is here: http://db.apache.org/ojb/docu/howtos/howto-work-with-clustering.html#Do+ The+Cache I guess that is more of a clustering tutorial than an optimistic locking tutorial. That might be where the confusion stemmed from.
So since we will be deploying our app in a clustered environment, I will need to use OSCache or ObjectCachePerBrokerImpl as the second level cache, correct? Thanks, Wes -----Original Message----- From: Armin Waibel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 1:14 PM To: OJB Users List Subject: Re: Is OSCache needed for Optimistic Locking? Hi Wes, Lemke, Wesley wrote: > Going to try this one more time.... :) > sorry for the delay! >>Does the default Cache Impl in OJB 1.0.2 work with Optimistic locking? yep! > Anyone? Does the Open Symphony Cache handle multiple VMs where the > default impl in OJB doesn't? yep, ObjectCacheDefaultImpl doesn't support multiple VM's, ObjectCachePerBrokerImpl hasn't a problem (because lifetime of cache, see docs), ObjectCacheTwoLevelImpl could use OsCache as second level cache. > What is the reason that Open Symphony's cache on the tutorial page for > Optimistic Locking? Is it a suggestion or required? > Could you point me to the tutorial, I can't find it. regards, Armin > -----Original Message----- > From: Lemke, Wesley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 8:27 AM > To: OJB Users List > Subject: RE: Is OSCache needed for Optimistic Locking? > > > Anyone? Does the Open Symphony Cache handle multiple VMs where the > default impl in OJB doesn't? Is that the reason the Optimisitic > Locking tutorial tells you to use Open Symphony? > > >> -----Original Message----- >>From: Lemke, Wesley >>Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 9:01 AM >>To: 'OJB Users List' >>Subject: Is OSCache needed for Optimistic Locking? >> >>Does the default Cache Impl in OJB 1.0.2 work with Optimistic locking? > > >>We are having a problem when using the Os Cache implementation, but it > > >>works fine with the default implementation. Before I try to figure >>out what's wrong, I was wondering if it would be ok to just use the >>Default Implementation. >> >>Thanks, >>Wes > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
