On 18 Oct 2012, at 08:01, Bela Ban wrote:
Furthermore, a big +1000 to *remove* the <backup-for> element,
which I
think isn't needed (and I've said this before) …
-1001
Without it the backup cache *must* have the same name as the original cache, which is too
restrictive.
Cheers,
--
Mircea Markus
Infinispan lead (
www.infinispan.org)