If you want to use Transfer across a cluster, see: http://transfersync.riaforge.org/
Agreed, given the nature of what you are trying to do, no-lock may well be handy. The question is, why is it such a neccessity? Mark On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 2:27 PM, NickHaggmark <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > > > -- E: [email protected] W: www.compoundtheory.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
