Yes, aspectizing is what makes it possible for the cache to detect changes in the object. (It actually detects changes in internal fields rather than getter/setter invocations.) Without this the cache has no idea the object has changed and needs to be replicated, unless you call putObject() again. In your pseudo-code, the remove() call should be unnecessary. The second call to putObject should have been enough to cause the data to replicate. See http://www.onjava.com/pub/a/onjava/2005/11/09/jboss-pojo-cache.html for a general discussion of PojoCache vs. plain TreeCache. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3977687#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...