Yes, that's the snag. Unfortunately the CacheContainer in core is a little too complex to be put in API. I had the choice of using the names Cache and CacheContainer in -api and introduce EmbeddedCache and EmbeddedCacheContainer in -core, but that meant changing lots of code around that. So I opted for BasicCache and BasicCacheContainer in -api, which I thought had less impact since the embedded case is probably more common. One way or the other we would cause disruption. Tristan On 11/07/2011 10:40 AM, Galder Zamarreño wrote: > Hi Tristan, > > Shouldn't RemoteCacheManager be extending CacheContainer instead of BasicCacheContainer? > > Otherwise, existing client code like this will break: > https://issues.jboss.org/secure/attachment/12348761/ClientTest1.java > > Cheers, > -- > Galder Zamarreño > Sr. Software Engineer > Infinispan, JBoss Cache > _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev