Tristan Tarrant writes:
Thanks everyone, I've created a JIRA to track this:
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-8595
> To add to Adrian's history lesson:
>
> ClusterRegistry (a single, replicated, non-persistent, scoped cache) was
> replaced with the InternalCacheRegistry
To add to Adrian's history lesson:
ClusterRegistry (a single, replicated, non-persistent, scoped cache) was
replaced with the InternalCacheRegistry which provides a common way for
subsystems to register internal caches with the "traits" they want but
configured to take into account some global
Different internal caches have different needs regarding consistency,
tx, persistence, etc...
The first incarnation of ClusterRegistry was using a single cache and
was implemented exactly as you suggested, but had major shortcomings
satisfying the needs of several unrelated users, so we decided
Because you would have to duplicate entire Map on each update, unless
you used not-100%-so-far functional commands. We've used the ScopedKey
that would make this Cache, Object>. This
approach was abandoned with ISPN-5932 [1], Adrian and Tristan can
elaborate why.
I'm pretty sure it's a silly question, but I need to ask it :)
Why can't we store all our internal information in a single, replicated
cache (of a type ). PURPOSE could be an enum
or a string identifying whether it's scripting cache, transaction cache or
anything
From systematic POV, +1. For marshalling it would bring another 11
bytes, which is not ideal, so we might consider encoding that
differently. Not sure how error-prone would some naming that has
non-trivial transformation be.
R.
On 11/03/2017 12:42 AM, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
> On 2 November
On 2 November 2017 at 22:20, Adrian Nistor wrote:
> I like this proposal.
+1
> On 11/02/2017 03:18 PM, Galder Zamarreño wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'm currently going through the JCache 1.1 proposed changes, and one that
>> made me think is [1]. In particular:
>>
>>> Caches do
+1
On Thu, Nov 2, 2017, 7:35 PM Adrian Nistor wrote:
> I like this proposal.
>
> On 11/02/2017 03:18 PM, Galder Zamarreño wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'm currently going through the JCache 1.1 proposed changes, and one
> that made me think is [1]. In particular:
> >
> >>
I like this proposal.
On 11/02/2017 03:18 PM, Galder Zamarreño wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm currently going through the JCache 1.1 proposed changes, and one that
> made me think is [1]. In particular:
>
>> Caches do not use forward slashes (/) or colons (:) as part of their names.
>> Additionally