RE: [jbosscache-dev] Habanero: implementing peek() and _*() methods

Since I haven't done the integration so it is difficult to say for sure. But I have a feeling that I will need to have the access to _* methods as well from PojoCache. So would it be OK then to create a delegate interface from CacheSPI (e.g., NakedNode, in that calls here are not going thru any interceptor chain) that exposes these APIs? User can still access these but at least it doesn't pollute the SPI interfaces. BTW, maybe this deserves a forum thread? :-) My 2 cents, -Ben -----Original Message----- From: jbosscache-dev-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:jbosscache-dev-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Manik Surtani Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 8:17 PM To: jbosscache-dev(a)lists.jboss.org Subject: [jbosscache-dev] Habanero: implementing peek() and _*() methods In 2.0.0, all interceptors have a reference to a CacheSPI only. This causes a problem in some interceptors (cache loader, lock interceptors, etc) which currently make a few direct calls to _get(), _put(), etc. to perform operations on the cache while bypassing the interceptor stack entirely. What do people think the best way would be do provide this access for very specialised cases, but not exposing such calls in the CacheSPI interface for generic Interceptors people may implement? I'm currently doing this by creating a 'bypassInterceptorChain' option and then calling a standard put() or get(), but this is at best a hack, plus it exposes the 'bypassInterceptorChain' option in a public API for users to (ab)use. Any better ideas? Cheers, -- Manik Surtani Lead, JBoss Cache JBoss, a division of Red Hat Email: manik(a)jboss.org Telephone: +44 7786 702 706 MSN: manik(a)surtani.org Yahoo/AIM/Skype: maniksurtani _______________________________________________ jbosscache-dev mailing list jbosscache-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosscache-dev