Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 11270 invoked from network); 2 Sep 2004 09:05:44 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 2 Sep 2004 09:05:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 47184 invoked by uid 500); 2 Sep 2004 09:05:40 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 47125 invoked by uid 500); 2 Sep 2004 09:05:39 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 47109 invoked by uid 99); 2 Sep 2004 09:05:39 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (hermes.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [66.111.4.30] (HELO frontend1.messagingengine.com) (66.111.4.30) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with ESMTP; Thu, 02 Sep 2004 02:05:37 -0700 X-Sasl-enc: /xRcKklpy453V8xviK8G0A 1094115935 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [213.48.13.39]) by www.fastmail.fm (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD474C15297 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 2004 05:05:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4136E2AE.4010308@upaya.co.uk> Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 10:06:54 +0100 From: Upayavira User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7 (Windows/20040616) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@cocoon.apache.org Subject: Re: EHCache in its own block? References: <1e780a43f8a17e08a24540a.20040901132030.enycu.tbref@www.dslextreme.com> <6F373402-FC5C-11D8-B7D8-000A95984AEA@betaversion.org> <4136C99C.2010903@cbim.it> <14043BF6-FCB8-11D8-B7D8-000A95984AEA@betaversion.org> In-Reply-To: <14043BF6-FCB8-11D8-B7D8-000A95984AEA@betaversion.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Pier Fumagalli wrote: > On 2 Sep 2004, at 08:19, Ugo Cei wrote: > >> Pier Fumagalli wrote: >> >>> >>> I think it might have been because in the code comments of the >>> EHStore there's a mention that the store is not persistent across >>> JVM restarts, but now it seems they "fixed" it... >>> http://ehcache.sourceforge.net/documentation/#mozTocId581616 >> >> >> But see also: >> >> "Note: This documentation is being updated for the forthcoming >> release of Version 1.0 of ehcache. The current release, version 0.9, >> contains most of the features documented here, with the main >> exception being persistence DiskStores." >> >> Assuming I interpret this correctly, we could have EHCache as the >> default cache as soon as it reaches 1.0. > > > I agree... I'd say to separate it out of the ScratchPad so that it's > easier to test (maybe in 2.1.6), and then when they hit 1.0, we can > swap it with JCS. > > All agree??? Why? We have an unreleased JCS, so I don't see the problem with an unreleased EHCache. And, as JCS doesn't persit disc stores, the fact that EHCache can't yet isn't a problem either. To my mind, it is just a question of which performs best, and impression is that EHCache works better. So, if one of the major problems with 2.1.5 is poor cache performance under load with JCS as default, and EHCache works under that load, I'd say switch to EHCache for 2.1.6. Upayavira > Pier