On 3 May 2008, at 11:19, Sebastian Hennebrueder wrote:
Christian Bauer schrieb:
> On May 03, 2008, at 11:48 , Pete Muir wrote:
>>> Manually written, idea: a large site cannot be hold in a cache
>>> being present in memory. This cache has a small in memory area
>>> holding very frequent files (size can be configured) and fetches
>>> files from disk.
>>> Though the operation system caches access to disk, this is still
>>> a lot slower than memory access but probably faster than having
>>> complex queries to the database (see Seam Wiki queries)
>> I'm not quite sure why we need this?
> Given that ehcache supports configurable overflow to disk, I
I will test the behaviour of EHCache using the Disk Overflow and
give you a feedback on this.
JBoss Cache 1.x and 2
This won't be compilable at the same time.
Yup. But JBoss 4 uses 1, and JBoss 5 uses 2. And from my
experimentation you can't use 1 in JBoss 5 or 2 in JBoss 4.
How shall I provide this, because I would break the build.
Dunno ;-) Thats part of the challenge. However we definitely need to
I will provide the abstraction for the Pojo as well, though I do not
perfectly see the need. It is slower than the normal JBoss Cache
Because we already support it?
seam-dev mailing list