[jbosscache-users] Chaining ClusteredCacheGetCommand and JDBCCacheLoader

Hi, I have two servers, server A and server B, each running a JBoss cache instance. Server A uses server B as a far cache. The cache instance on server B also uses a database as a persistent cache store. Server A has ClusteredCacheLoader as its only loader, and server B has ClusteredCacheLoader as its first loader and JDBCCacheLoader as its second loader. My question is, Can server A get a cached state that is *only* in the persistent cache store? Below is the flow I imagined: get cached state calls ClusteredCacheLoader calls JDBCCacheLoader Server A ----------------------------> cache instance on server A ----------------------------------------> cache instance on server B ------------------------------------> persistent cache store I'm asking this question because I noticed when a cache state was only in persistent cache store, server A would not be able to get that state. I turned on the traces on both servers. The log on server A showed ClusteredCacheLoader did make a remote call with ClusteredGetCommand and correct fqn being sent to server B. The log on server B showed that server B did receive the remote call from server A. Server B then executed ClusteredGetCommand, which in turn executed ExistsCommand first and then GetDataMapCommand. Since the requested cache was not in the memory, both commands returned false or null. Unfortunately, the chain execution ended here. No JDBC call was issued after GetDataMapCommand returned [false, null] to server A. As a result, server A always got null instead of the state in the persistent store. Can I update my configuration files to enable command chaining or something familiar? That is, when ClusteredGetCommand in server B doesn't get anything from memory, JDBCCacheLoader will be executed to get the data from database. Or some customization is needed here? By the way, CommandAwareRpcDispatcher said ClusteredGetCommand ".. is a non-visitable command - so performing directly and not via the invoker.", so somehow interceptor chaining was bypassed. Any suggestion is greatly appreciated. Thanks, Yong