Hi all,
Thank you all for the quick responses. I was expecting to be able to use both as well,
Sanne.
I wrote a junit test setting expiration -1 and doesn't matter. Once you put them in a
cache with a time, it make those entries mortal.
Do you still want me to create a bug in Jira or is this working as design? I'd be
happy to update the documentation as well, since I spent a lot of time combing through the
docs.
For my problem with the memcached protocol, I'll treat entries defined with 1 year out
as immortal and use the put with key/value instead of the put with
key/value/expiration/timeunit.
Thanks,
Owen
-----Original Message-----
From: Sanne Grinovero [mailto:sanne.grinovero@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 7:56 AM
To: infinispan -Dev List
Subject: Re: [infinispan-dev] Infinispan 4.1 | Eviction policies for Memcached protocol
2010/9/23 Vladimir Blagojevic <vblagoje(a)redhat.com>:
On 2010-09-23, at 10:49 AM, Galder ZamarreƱo wrote:
>
> On Sep 23, 2010, at 4:41 PM, Vladimir Blagojevic wrote:
>
>> Owen,
>>
>> By default all entries are immortal, that is, their expiration and lifespan are
-1. Being immortal they are subject to eviction policies. As soon as they are not
immortal, as you noticed, they are not subject to eviction policies and container size
indeed can grow above limit specified in maxEntries. I will make sure that this is very
clear in documentation. I admit it is not now :(
>
> Hmmmm, should they really be exclusive? Just because you want your entries to expire
if not used in 1h, you shouldn't give up on controlling the size of the cache,
shouldn't you?
Yeah, maybe you are right. It is more intuitive that way. I admit, we really convoluted
this one :)
Manik, everyone else?
I was really expecting to be able to use both :)
cheers,
Sanne