Oh, sorry, I was referring to in-memory state, not the one in the cache loader. Forget about my last comment. Galder Zamarreño Support Engineer JBoss, a division of Red Hat -----Original Message----- From: jbosscache-dev-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:jbosscache-dev-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Galder Zamarreno Sent: 14 September 2006 12:30 To: Manik Surtani; Vladimir Blagojevic Cc: jbosscache-dev(a)lists.jboss.org Subject: RE: [jbosscache-dev] JBoss Cache 2.0.0.ALPHA status I like the idea. That's what I actually did for the SingletonCacheLoader when I wanted to get the in-memory state. Instead of using the getState() methods in TreeCache, I recursively called get/puts. It would definitely make things a lot simple :-) Galder Zamarreño Support Engineer JBoss, a division of Red Hat -----Original Message----- From: jbosscache-dev-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:jbosscache-dev-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Manik Surtani Sent: 12 September 2006 14:31 To: Vladimir Blagojevic Cc: jbosscache-dev(a)lists.jboss.org Subject: Re: [jbosscache-dev] JBoss Cache 2.0.0.ALPHA status If we're implementing store/loadState in an AbstractCacheLoader (which uses gets/puts anyway), then why not move this code into the interceptor and ditch the store/loadState methods from the CacheLoader interface? Hmm, trying to think of why this may not be a good thing ... -- 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 On 12 Sep 2006, at 14:25, Vladimir Blagojevic wrote: _______________________________________________ jbosscache-dev mailing list jbosscache-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosscache-dev _______________________________________________ jbosscache-dev mailing list jbosscache-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosscache-dev