+1, VAM should be the default.
Only people who are resilient to change their existing stores to VAM should use the 1.x
option, which would need explicitly definition.
Galder Zamarreño
Sr. Software Maintenance Engineer
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
-----Original Message-----
From: Manik Surtani [mailto:manik@jboss.org]
Sent: 30 January 2007 22:55
To: Galder Zamarreno
Cc: jbosscache-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
Subject: Re: [jbosscache-dev] migrating data stored in 1.x format to VAM format
I see what you mean, although I would like the default to be to use
the VAM.
--
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 30 Jan 2007, at 20:45, Galder Zamarreno wrote:
Actually, the more I think about this, the less I like the idea of
switching the marshalling from 1.x to 2.x at the CacheLoaders
level, or at least forcing them to do so.
Customers that want to use JBossCache 2.x might be reluctant to
migrate their data from one format to the other. I can see how an
existing customer might think this is a proper pain in the ass,
independent of the benefits, and might reduce adoption among them.
We want to remove barriers upgrading, but at the same time, we want
new customer to use new marshalling, so I'd actually implement the
possibility to use 1.x marshalling which is plan java serialization
at the CacheLoader level. This could easily achieved adding a
property to the <properties> section.
Just note that this does not apply to the marshalling done at
replication level as there's no hard data that needs migrating.
Galder Zamarreño
Sr. Software Maintenance Engineer
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
-----Original Message-----
From: jbosscache-dev-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:jbosscache-dev-
bounces(a)lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Galder Zamarreno
Sent: 25 January 2007 13:07
To: jbosscache-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
Subject: [jbosscache-dev] migrating data stored in 1.x format to
VAM format
Hi all,
I'm deferring
http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBCACHE-879 to
BETA2 because I still need to write this:
http://jira.jboss.com/
jira/browse/JBCACHE-882
The reason I'm deferring it is because I can't see a
straightforward way of doing such thing right now. Ideally, you
should be able run a 1.x version (cache1) and a 2.x version
(cache2) of JBC in the same VM so that you can do a loop of
cache1.get() and call cache2.put(). However, I have doubts that
that this approach will be free of class loading issues. What do
you think?
I was wondering whether Region based could help here, but I can't
see right now how this could be done.
Something I had in mind is having the capability of to start a
cache with either 1.x marshalling or VAM marshalling, but oriented
at being used only at the cache loader level. It wouldn't make much
sense for replication because there's no hard data there.
I thought that you could start two instances of cache 2.x, first
with 1.x. marshalling and the other one with VAM both pointing to
different JDBCCacheLoader stores. You could then get from the first
using normal mmarshalling and put in the second one which has VAM
marshalling active, what do you think?
If you like the approach, I should be have it ready by BETA2.
This last approach looks simpler to me, what do you think?
Galder Zamarreño
Sr. Software Maintenance Engineer
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
_______________________________________________
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