hi Mark! Thanks for the feedback. I fully agree with what you said, and I don't think that it should be an option if have cache turned on for a specific entity or for the config as a whole. However, if you are going on a case by case basis for items that are safe / relevant to cache, would it make sense to allow someone to be able to do a dirty read on objects that are not being cached by Transfer? I full intend to cache a large number of objects, however some I simply cannot cache some (for one reason or another) given the current architecture and existing dependencies. Perhaps I'm looking at this the wrong way and I should be focusing more time on eliminating these problems, it would just be nice to be able to 'make it work'. Does that make sense? (on a side note: I'm also working on a messaging based mechanism for dynamically invalidating cache across multiple servers, which might also help solve my problems)
Thanks again! Nick --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Before posting questions to the group please read: http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev/web/how-to-ask-support-questions-on-transfer You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transfer-dev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
