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.

Anyone working with coherence and found this feature useful? I'd love to see some use cases for this :) Cheers, Mircea ------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev

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?

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.