[jbosscache-commits] JBoss Cache SVN: r4712 - core/trunk/src/main/docbook/userguide/en/modules.

[jbosscache-commits at lists.jboss.org]

Author: mircea.markus
Date: 2007-10-31 06:09:37 -0400 (Wed, 31 Oct 2007)
New Revision: 4712

Modified:
   core/trunk/src/main/docbook/userguide/en/modules/eviction_policies.xml
Log:
added 'structural' nodes as an use case for resident nodes

Modified: core/trunk/src/main/docbook/userguide/en/modules/eviction_policies.xml
===================================================================
--- core/trunk/src/main/docbook/userguide/en/modules/eviction_policies.xml	2007-10-30 23:32:00 UTC (rev 4711)
+++ core/trunk/src/main/docbook/userguide/en/modules/eviction_policies.xml	2007-10-31 10:09:37 UTC (rev 4712)
@@ -146,7 +146,26 @@
              <literal>Node.setResident</literal> should be used. By default, the newly added nodes are not resident.
              The <literal>resident</literal> attribute of a node is neither replicated nor transactionable.
          </para>
+         <para>
+            A good use case for this would be marking the internally build nodes as resident. E.g.
+            <programlisting>
+               <![CDATA[
+               ...
 
+                         cache.put("/a/b/c", "k", "v");
+                         cache.getRoot().getChild("/a").setResident(true);
+                         cache.getRoot().getChild("/a/b").setResident(true);
+               ...
+               ]]>
+            </programlisting>
+            In this example, the nodes <emphasis>/a</emphasis> and <emphasis>/a/b</emphasis> are internally build for
+            supporting the existence of node <emphasis>/a/b/c</emphasis>. If so, they are good candidates for being
+            marked as resident nodes: this would lead into performance improvements as no eviction events would be
+            generated when accessing <emphasis>/a</emphasis> and <emphasis>/a/b</emphasis>. N.B. when adding attributes
+            to such a node, e.g. <emphasis>cache.put("/a", "k", "v")</emphasis> it would make sense to mark the nodes
+            as non resident again and let them be considered for eviction.
+         </para>
+
       </section>
 
       <section>