On 30 Sep 2009, at 08:06, Galder Zamarreno wrote:
On 09/29/2009 10:12 AM, Mircea Markus wrote:
>
> On Sep 28, 2009, at 2:04 PM, Galder Zamarreno wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 09/28/2009 10:24 AM, Mircea Markus wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> While looking into a migration script for coherence I saw that they
>>> allow wildcard as cache names. E.g.
>>>
>>> <cache-mapping>
>>> <cache-name>*</cache-name>
>>> <scheme-name>default-replicated</scheme-name>
>>> </cache-mapping>
>>> <cache-mapping>
>>> <cache-name>VirtualCache</cache-name>
>>> <scheme-name>default-distributed</scheme-name>
>>> </cache-mapping>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So when the code asks for any cache name, they will return the
>>> corresponding mapping:
>>> e.g.
>>>
>>>
>>> CacheFactory.getCache("SomeCache") would return the "default-
>>> replicated"
>>> cache, and CacheFactory.getCache("VirtualCache") would return the
>>> default-distributed cache.
>>
>> Hmmm, that seems to work exactly like out default and named caches
>> do.
>> The default being the * one and the named cache the VirtualCache.
>> Now,
>> the thing that would be different is if they allow things like:
>>
>> <cache-mapping>
>> <cache-name>Replicated*</cache-name>
>> <scheme-name>default-replicated</scheme-name>
>> </cache-mapping>
>>
>> And so, CacheFactory.getCache("Replicated1") and
>> CacheFactory.getCache("Replicated2") would return "default-
>> replicated".
> this is the kind of behavior I wanted to describe - thanks for the
> better suited example!
> So, does anyone see benefits in having this feature?
I see some benefit but right now this looks like an edge case to me
and
would not implement it.
Yeah; maybe later if enough folk ask for it.
Cheers
--
Manik Surtani
manik(a)jboss.org
Lead, Infinispan
Lead, JBoss Cache
http://www.infinispan.org
http://www.jbosscache.org