A. Yup, that's what I'm referring to. :-) I don't want to be responsible for calling shutdown().
What was bothering me is the case where say, you're reinitlizating your app,
transfer gets loaded, and a bad error happens that stops the initialization
process midway. You're then left with an instance of ehcache and no way to
shut it down.
Granted this should be an edge exception in production but led me to this
experiment.
B. Attached is what I have so far. It's all cache and no statistics but
maybe others will find it useful.
1. The CF9 object cache is _not_ exclusive to this provider so I didn't
incorporate any settings for the cache. Those should be set elsewhere in
your app using CacheSetProperties()
2. Currently extends "transfer.com.cache.provider.AbstractBaseProvider"
so it's assuming you have a "/transfer" mapping. Change as needed
3. ShutDown() simulates the existing ehCache implementation by discarding
all related objects. However, if this call were to fail or never be called,
the object themselves timeout and so they'll eventually be purged regardless
of whether shutdown() fails or is never called.
4. Usage example below where timeSpan and idleTime are minutes, required,
and are explained in the CF9's CachePut() function.
<defaultcache provider="transfer.path.to.this.file.antCF9CacheProvider">
<setting name="timeSpan" value="30"/>
<setting name="idleTime" value="15"/>
</defaultcache>
- Gabriel
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Mark Mandel <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 2:34 AM, Dorioo <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Main benefit I was looking for is not having to manage the ehCache
>> instance myself.
>
>
> You know the eHCache provider in Transfer manages this for you? You just
> call .shutdown() on transfer, and the ehCache Cache is shutdown properly. No
> more management than that necessary.
>
>
>> If I fail to properly shutdown an ehcache instance, it remains in memory.
>> Using the CF9 object cache, I simulate a "shutdown" by discarding all of the
>> objects in the CF9 object cache that begin with my providers naming prefix.
>> And if that were to fail for any reason, the objects themselves have a
>> timeout and would be purged in time anyway by CF9.
>>
>> Obvious limitations are with the limited ways in which CF9 allows you to
>> interact with its object cache but so far it's looking viable for my needs.
>>
>
> When you get it finished, feel free to post it to the list, and I can add
> it as a cache provider in Transfer.
>
> Mark
>
> --
> E: [email protected]
> T: http://www.twitter.com/neurotic
> W: www.compoundtheory.com
>
> Hands-on ColdFusion ORM Training @ cf.Objective() 2010
> www.ColdFusionOrmTraining.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
>
--
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
antCF9CacheProvider.cfc
Description: Binary data
